Search (87 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × author_ss:"Leydesdorff, L."
  1. Leydesdorff, L.: Can networks of journal-journal citations be used as indicators of change in the social sciences? (2003) 0.04
    0.03613107 = product of:
      0.07226214 = sum of:
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
        0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023188837 = score(doc=4460,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.016784549 = product of:
          0.033569098 = sum of:
            0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033569098 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(4/8)
    
    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
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 59(2003) no.1, S.84-104
  2. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Barth, A.; Leydesdorff, L.: Detecting the historical roots of research fields by reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS) (2014) 0.03
    0.025306538 = product of:
      0.0674841 = sum of:
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=1238,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
        0.022089208 = weight(_text_:of in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022089208 = score(doc=1238,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
        0.01544937 = product of:
          0.03089874 = sum of:
            0.03089874 = weight(_text_:on in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03089874 = score(doc=1238,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.751-764
  3. Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The generation of aggregated journal-journal citation maps on the basis of the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index (1994) 0.03
    0.025039416 = product of:
      0.066771775 = sum of:
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 8281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=8281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 8281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8281)
        0.025901893 = weight(_text_:of in 8281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025901893 = score(doc=8281,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 8281, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8281)
        0.010924355 = product of:
          0.02184871 = sum of:
            0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 8281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02184871 = score(doc=8281,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 8281, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8281)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Describes a method for the generation of journal-journal citation maps on the basis of the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index. Discusses sources of potential error from this data. Offers strategies to counteract such errors. Analyzes a number of scientometric periodical mappings in relation to mappings from previous studies which have used tape data and/or data from ISI's Journal Citation Reports. Compares the quality of these mappings with the quality of those for previous years in order to demonstrate the use of such mappings as indicators for dynamic developments in the sciences
  4. Leydesdorff, L.: On the normalization and visualization of author co-citation data : Salton's Cosine versus the Jaccard index (2008) 0.03
    0.02501297 = product of:
      0.066701256 = sum of:
        0.036299463 = weight(_text_:use in 1341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036299463 = score(doc=1341,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 1341, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1341)
        0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 1341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018933605 = score(doc=1341,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1341, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1341)
        0.011468184 = product of:
          0.022936368 = sum of:
            0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 1341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022936368 = score(doc=1341,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 1341, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1341)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    The debate about which similarity measure one should use for the normalization in the case of Author Co-citation Analysis (ACA) is further complicated when one distinguishes between the symmetrical co-citation - or, more generally, co-occurrence - matrix and the underlying asymmetrical citation - occurrence - matrix. In the Web environment, the approach of retrieving original citation data is often not feasible. In that case, one should use the Jaccard index, but preferentially after adding the number of total citations (i.e., occurrences) on the main diagonal. Unlike Salton's cosine and the Pearson correlation, the Jaccard index abstracts from the shape of the distributions and focuses only on the intersection and the sum of the two sets. Since the correlations in the co-occurrence matrix may be spurious, this property of the Jaccard index can be considered as an advantage in this case.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.1, S.77-85
  5. Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The construction and globalization of the knowledge base in inter-human communication systems (2003) 0.02
    0.023857709 = product of:
      0.06362056 = sum of:
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=1621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 1621, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1621)
        0.021168415 = weight(_text_:of in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021168415 = score(doc=1621,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1621, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1621)
        0.016784549 = product of:
          0.033569098 = sum of:
            0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033569098 = score(doc=1621,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    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
    Source
    Canadian Journal of Communication 28(2003), H.3, S. -
  6. Leydesdorff, L.; Rotolo, D.; Rafols, I.: Bibliometric perspectives on medical innovation using the medical subject headings of PubMed (2012) 0.02
    0.023238067 = product of:
      0.061968178 = sum of:
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=494)
        0.02008212 = weight(_text_:of in 494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02008212 = score(doc=494,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 494, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=494)
        0.016218461 = product of:
          0.032436922 = sum of:
            0.032436922 = weight(_text_:on in 494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032436922 = score(doc=494,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.35714048 = fieldWeight in 494, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=494)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.11, S.2239-2253
  7. Leydesdorff, L.: Why words and co-word cannot map the development of the science (1997) 0.02
    0.02191706 = product of:
      0.058445495 = sum of:
        0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025048172 = score(doc=147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
        0.026776163 = weight(_text_:of in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026776163 = score(doc=147,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.41465378 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=147,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Analyses and compares in term of co-occurrences and co-absenses of words in a restricted set of full-text articles from a sub-specialty of biochemistry. By using the distribution of words over the section, a clear distinction among 'theoretical' 'observation', and 'methodological' terminology can be made in individual articles. However, at the level of the set this structure is no longer retrieval: Words change both in terms of frequencies of relations with other words, and in terms of positional meaning from 1 text to another. The fluidity of networks in which nodes and links may chenge positions is ecpected to destabilise representations of developments of the sciences on the basis of co-occurrences and co-absenses of words. Discusses the consequences for the lexicographic approach to generating artificial intelligence from scientific texts
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 48(1997) no.5, S.418-427
  8. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011) 0.02
    0.02189137 = product of:
      0.058376987 = sum of:
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
        0.023000197 = weight(_text_:of in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023000197 = score(doc=4186,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
        0.013987125 = product of:
          0.02797425 = sum of:
            0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02797425 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.217-229
  9. Rotolo, D.; Rafols, I.; Hopkins, M.M.; Leydesdorff, L.: Strategic intelligence on emerging technologies : scientometric overlay mapping (2017) 0.02
    0.021074904 = product of:
      0.056199744 = sum of:
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 3322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=3322,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 3322, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3322)
        0.021168415 = weight(_text_:of in 3322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021168415 = score(doc=3322,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 3322, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3322)
        0.009363732 = product of:
          0.018727465 = sum of:
            0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 3322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018727465 = score(doc=3322,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 3322, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3322)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    This paper examines the use of scientometric overlay mapping as a tool of "strategic intelligence" to aid the governing of emerging technologies. We develop an integrative synthesis of different overlay mapping techniques and associated perspectives on technological emergence across geographical, social, and cognitive spaces. To do so, we longitudinally analyze (with publication and patent data) three case studies of emerging technologies in the medical domain. These are RNA interference (RNAi), human papillomavirus (HPV) testing technologies for cervical cancer, and thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) genetic testing. Given the flexibility (i.e., adaptability to different sources of data) and granularity (i.e., applicability across multiple levels of data aggregation) of overlay mapping techniques, we argue that these techniques can favor the integration and comparison of results from different contexts and cases, thus potentially functioning as a platform for "distributed" strategic intelligence for analysts and decision makers.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.214-233
  10. Leydesdorff, L.; Rafols, I.: Local emergence and global diffusion of research technologies : an exploration of patterns of network formation (2011) 0.02
    0.020804098 = product of:
      0.055477593 = sum of:
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 4445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=4445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 4445, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4445)
        0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 4445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023188837 = score(doc=4445,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4445, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4445)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 4445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=4445,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4445, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4445)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Grasping the fruits of "emerging technologies" is an objective of many government priority programs in a knowledge-based and globalizing economy. We use the publication records (in the Science Citation Index) of two emerging technologies to study the mechanisms of diffusion in the case of two innovation trajectories: small interference RNA (siRNA) and nanocrystalline solar cells (NCSC). Methods for analyzing and visualizing geographical and cognitive diffusion are specified as indicators of different dynamics. Geographical diffusion is illustrated with overlays to Google Maps; cognitive diffusion is mapped using an overlay to a map based on the ISI subject categories. The evolving geographical networks show both preferential attachment and small-world characteristics. The strength of preferential attachment decreases over time while the network evolves into an oligopolistic control structure with small-world characteristics. The transition from disciplinary-oriented ("Mode 1") to transfer-oriented ("Mode 2") research is suggested as the crucial difference in explaining the different rates of diffusion between siRNA and NCSC.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.5, S.846-860
  11. 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) 0.02
    0.020435259 = product of:
      0.054494023 = sum of:
        0.025048172 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025048172 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
        0.02008212 = weight(_text_:of in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02008212 = score(doc=2779,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
        0.009363732 = product of:
          0.018727465 = sum of:
            0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018727465 = score(doc=2779,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    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.
    Aid
    Web of Science
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.707-714
  12. Leydesdorff, L.; Rafols, I.; Chen, C.: Interactive overlays of journals and the measurement of interdisciplinarity on the basis of aggregated journal-journal citations (2013) 0.02
    0.020142334 = product of:
      0.05371289 = sum of:
        0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020873476 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
        0.019324033 = weight(_text_:of in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019324033 = score(doc=1131,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
        0.013515383 = product of:
          0.027030766 = sum of:
            0.027030766 = weight(_text_:on in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027030766 = score(doc=1131,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.29761705 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Using the option Analyze Results with the Web of Science, one can directly generate overlays onto global journal maps of science. The maps are based on the 10,000+ journals contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indices (2011). The disciplinary diversity of the retrieval is measured in terms of Rao-Stirling's "quadratic entropy" (Izsák & Papp, 1995). Since this indicator of interdisciplinarity is normalized between 0 and 1, interdisciplinarity can be compared among document sets and across years, cited or citing. The colors used for the overlays are based on Blondel, Guillaume, Lambiotte, and Lefebvre's (2008) community-finding algorithms operating on the relations among journals included in the JCR. The results can be exported from VOSViewer with different options such as proportional labels, heat maps, or cluster density maps. The maps can also be web-started or animated (e.g., using PowerPoint). The "citing" dimension of the aggregated journal-journal citation matrix was found to provide a more comprehensive description than the matrix based on the cited archive. The relations between local and global maps and their different functions in studying the sciences in terms of journal literatures are further discussed: Local and global maps are based on different assumptions and can be expected to serve different purposes for the explanation.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.12, S.2573-2586
  13. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.02
    0.01774376 = product of:
      0.047316696 = sum of:
        0.021168415 = weight(_text_:of in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021168415 = score(doc=4681,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
        0.009363732 = product of:
          0.018727465 = sum of:
            0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.018727465 = score(doc=4681,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.016784549 = product of:
          0.033569098 = sum of:
            0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033569098 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    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
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.198-201
  14. Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016) 0.02
    0.016365897 = product of:
      0.043642394 = sum of:
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
        0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0167351 = score(doc=3231,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
        0.0055176322 = product of:
          0.0110352645 = sum of:
            0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0110352645 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3095-3100
  15. Hellsten, I.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The construction of interdisciplinarity : the development of the knowledge base and programmatic focus of the journal Climatic Change, 1977-2013 (2016) 0.02
    0.015998466 = product of:
      0.042662576 = sum of:
        0.02087234 = weight(_text_:of in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02087234 = score(doc=3089,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
        0.007803111 = product of:
          0.015606222 = sum of:
            0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015606222 = score(doc=3089,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.013987125 = product of:
          0.02797425 = sum of:
            0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02797425 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3089, 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=3089)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    Abstract
    Climate change as a complex physical and social issue has gained increasing attention in the natural as well as the social sciences. Climate change research has become more interdisciplinary and even transdisciplinary as a typical Mode-2 science that is also dependent on an application context for its further development. We propose to approach interdisciplinarity as a co-construction of the knowledge base in the reference patterns and the programmatic focus in the editorials in the core journal of the climate-change sciences-Climatic Change-during the period 1977-2013. First, we analyze the knowledge base of the journal and map journal-journal relations on the basis of the references in the articles. Second, we follow the development of the programmatic focus by analyzing the semantics in the editorials. We argue that interdisciplinarity is a result of the co-construction between different agendas: The selection of publications into the knowledge base of the journal, and the adjustment of the programmatic focus to the political context in the editorials. Our results show a widening of the knowledge base from referencing the multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science to citing journals from specialist fields. The programmatic focus follows policy-oriented issues and incorporates public metaphors.
    Date
    24. 8.2016 17:53:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.9, S.2181-2193
  16. Leydesdorff, L.; Sun, Y.: National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan : university-industry-government versus international coauthorship relations (2009) 0.02
    0.0154186785 = product of:
      0.041116476 = sum of:
        0.017710768 = weight(_text_:of in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017710768 = score(doc=2761,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
        0.006621159 = product of:
          0.013242318 = sum of:
            0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013242318 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = queryNorm
                0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.016784549 = product of:
          0.033569098 = sum of:
            0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033569098 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.041294612 = 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)
      0.375 = coord(3/8)
    
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.778-788
  17. Leydesdorff, L.: Similarity measures, author cocitation Analysis, and information theory (2005) 0.01
    0.013008684 = product of:
      0.052034736 = sum of:
        0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 3471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029945528 = score(doc=3471,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 3471, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3471)
        0.022089208 = weight(_text_:of in 3471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022089208 = score(doc=3471,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 3471, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3471)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    The use of Pearson's correlation coefficient in Author Cocitation Analysis was compared with Salton's cosine measure in a number of recent contributions. Unlike the Pearson correlation, the cosine is insensitive to the number of zeros. However, one has the option of applying a logarithmic transformation in correlation analysis. Information caiculus is based an both the logarithmic transformation and provides a non-parametric statistics. Using this methodology, one can cluster a document set in a precise way and express the differences in terms of bits of information. The algorithm is explained and used an the data set, which was made the subject of this discussion.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.7, S.769-772
  18. Leydesdorff, L.: Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations (2008) 0.01
    0.012214108 = product of:
      0.048856433 = sum of:
        0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 1361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025667597 = score(doc=1361,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 1361, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1361)
        0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 1361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023188837 = score(doc=1361,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 1361, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1361)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Aging of publications, percentage of self-citations, and impact vary from journal to journal within fields of science. The assumption that citation and publication practices are homogenous within specialties and fields of science is invalid. Furthermore, the delineation of fields and among specialties is fuzzy. Institutional units of analysis and persons may move between fields or span different specialties. The match between the citation index and institutional profiles varies among institutional units and nations. The respective matches may heavily affect the representation of the units. Non-Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) journals are increasingly cornered into transdisciplinary Mode-2 functions with the exception of specialist journals publishing in languages other than English. An externally cited impact factor can be calculated for these journals. The citation impact of non-ISI journals will be demonstrated using Science and Public Policy as the example.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.2, S.278-287
  19. Baumgartner, S.E.; Leydesdorff, L.: Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) of citations in scholarly literature : dynamic qualities of "transient" and "sticky knowledge claims" (2014) 0.01
    0.010565501 = product of:
      0.042262003 = sum of:
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 1241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=1241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 1241, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1241)
        0.02087234 = weight(_text_:of in 1241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02087234 = score(doc=1241,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 1241, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1241)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    Abstract
    Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) is applied to the citation curves of articles in six journals and to all citable items in a single field of science (virology, 24 journals) to distinguish among the developmental trajectories in subpopulations. Can citation patterns of highly-cited papers be distinguished in an early phase as "fast-breaking" papers? Can "late bloomers" or "sleeping beauties" be identified? Most interesting, we find differences between "sticky knowledge claims" that continue to be cited more than 10 years after publication and "transient knowledge claims" that show a decay pattern after reaching a peak within a few years. Only papers following the trajectory of a "sticky knowledge claim" can be expected to have a sustained impact. These findings raise questions about indicators of "excellence" that use aggregated citation rates after 2 or 3 years (e.g., impact factors). Because aggregated citation curves can also be composites of the two patterns, fifth-order polynomials (with four bending points) are needed to capture citation curves precisely. For the journals under study, the most frequently cited groups were furthermore much smaller than 10%. Although GBTM has proved a useful method for investigating differences among citation trajectories, the methodology does not allow us to define a percentage of highly cited papers inductively across different fields and journals. Using multinomial logistic regression, we conclude that predictor variables such as journal names, number of authors, etc., do not affect the stickiness of knowledge claims in terms of citations but only the levels of aggregated citations (which are field-specific).
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.797-811
  20. Ye, F.Y.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The "academic trace" of the performance matrix : a mathematical synthesis of the h-index and the integrated impact indicator (I3) (2014) 0.01
    0.010178424 = product of:
      0.040713698 = sum of:
        0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021389665 = score(doc=1237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
        0.019324033 = weight(_text_:of in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019324033 = score(doc=1237,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
      0.25 = coord(2/8)
    
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.742-750