-
Marion, L.S.; McCain, K.W.: Contrasting views of software engineering journals : author cocitation choices and indexer vocabulary assignments (2001)
0.07
0.07040809 = product of:
0.14081618 = sum of:
0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020873476 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5767, 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=5767)
0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021389665 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 5767, 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=5767)
0.015778005 = weight(_text_:of in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015778005 = score(doc=5767,freq=16.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
0.082775034 = sum of:
0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0110352645 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5767, 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=5767)
0.07173977 = weight(_text_:line in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07173977 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
0.5 = coord(4/8)
- Abstract
- We explore the intellectual subject structure and research themes in software engineering through the identification and analysis of a core journal literature. We examine this literature via two expert perspectives: that of the author, who identified significant work by citing it (journal cocitation analysis), and that of the professional indexer, who tags published work with subject terms to facilitate retrieval from a bibliographic database (subject profile analysis). The data sources are SCISEARCH (the on-line version of Science Citation Index), and INSPEC (a database covering software engineering, computer science, and information systems). We use data visualization tools (cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and PFNets) to show the "intellectual maps" of software engineering. Cocitation and subject profile analyses demonstrate that software engineering is a distinct interdisciplinary field, valuing practical and applied aspects, and spanning a subject continuum from "programming-in-the-smalI" to "programming-in-the-large." This continuum mirrors the software development life cycle by taking the operating system or major application from initial programming through project management, implementation, and maintenance. Object orientation is an integral but distinct subject area in software engineering. Key differences are the importance of management and programming: (1) cocitation analysis emphasizes project management and systems development; (2) programming techniques/languages are more influential in subject profiles; (3) cocitation profiles place object-oriented journals separately and centrally while the subject profile analysis locates these journals with the programming/languages group
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.4, S.297-308
-
Brooks, T.A.: How good are the best papers of JASIS? (2000)
0.05
0.05077749 = product of:
0.10155498 = sum of:
0.035423465 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035423465 = score(doc=4593,freq=4.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018933605 = score(doc=4593,freq=16.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4593, 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=4593)
0.009363732 = product of:
0.018727465 = sum of:
0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018727465 = score(doc=4593,freq=4.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 4593, 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=4593)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.037834182 = product of:
0.075668365 = sum of:
0.075668365 = weight(_text_:computers in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.075668365 = score(doc=4593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21710795 = queryWeight, product of:
5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.34852874 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(4/8)
- Abstract
- A citation analysis examined the 28 best articles published in JASIS from 1969-1996. Best articles tend to single-authored works twice as long as the avergae article published in JASIS. They are cited and self-cited much more often than the average article. The greatest source of references made to the best articles is from JASIS itself. The top 5 best papers focus largely on information retrieval and online searching
- Content
- Top by numbers of citations: (1) Saracevic, T. et al.: A study of information seeking and retrieving I-III (1988); (2) Bates, M.: Information search tactics (1979); (3) Cooper, W.S.: On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness (1973); (4) Marcus, R.S.: A experimental comparison of the effectiveness of computers and humans as search intermediaries (1983); (4) Fidel, R.: Online searching styles (1984)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.5, S.485-486
-
Mendez, A.: Some considerations on the retrieval of literature based on citations (1978)
0.04
0.04110594 = product of:
0.10961585 = sum of:
0.066795126 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.066795126 = score(doc=778,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 778, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=778)
0.017850775 = weight(_text_:of in 778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017850775 = score(doc=778,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 778, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=778)
0.024969954 = product of:
0.049939908 = sum of:
0.049939908 = weight(_text_:on in 778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049939908 = score(doc=778,freq=4.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.54985374 = fieldWeight in 778, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=778)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
-
Garfield, E.: From citation indexes to informetrics : is the tail now wagging the dog? (1998)
0.04
0.036440548 = product of:
0.09717479 = sum of:
0.041327372 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041327372 = score(doc=2809,freq=4.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029945528 = score(doc=2809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 2809, 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=2809)
0.025901893 = weight(_text_:of in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025901893 = score(doc=2809,freq=22.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 2809, 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=2809)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- Provides a synoptic review and history of citation indexes and their evolution into research evaluation tools including a discussion of the use of bibliometric data for evaluating US institutions (academic departments) by the National Research Council (NRC). Covers the origin and uses of periodical impact factors, validation studies of citation analysis, information retrieval and dissemination (current awareness), citation consciousness, historiography and science mapping, Citation Classics, and the history of contemporary science. Illustrates the retrieval of information by cited reference searching, especially as it applies to avoiding duplicated research. Discusses the 15 year cumulative impacts of periodicals and the percentage of uncitedness, the emergence of scientometrics, old boy networks, and citation frequency distributions. Concludes with observations about the future of citation indexing
-
Yoon, L.L.: ¬The performance of cited references as an approach to information retrieval (1994)
0.03
0.03159078 = product of:
0.084242076 = sum of:
0.050615493 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050615493 = score(doc=8219,freq=6.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 8219, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8219)
0.025901893 = weight(_text_:of in 8219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025901893 = score(doc=8219,freq=22.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 8219, 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=8219)
0.007724685 = product of:
0.01544937 = sum of:
0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 8219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01544937 = score(doc=8219,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 8219, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8219)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- Explores the relationship between the number of cited references used in a citation search and retrieval effectiveness. Focuses on analysing in terms of information retrieval effectiveness, the overlap among posting sets retrieved by various combinations of cited references. Findings from three case studies show the more cited references used for a citation search, the better the performance, in terms of retrieving more relevant documents, up to a point of diminishing returns. The overall level of overlap among relevant documents sets was found to be low. If only some of the cited references among many candidates are used for a citation search, a significant proportion of relevant documents may be missed. The characteristics of cited references showed that some variables are good indicators to predict relevance to a given question
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(1994) no.5, S.287-299
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.03
0.03054534 = product of:
0.06109068 = sum of:
0.016698781 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016698781 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.01711173 = weight(_text_:use in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01711173 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.13532647 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.016090471 = weight(_text_:of in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016090471 = score(doc=5171,freq=26.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.0111897 = product of:
0.0223794 = sum of:
0.0223794 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0223794 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(4/8)
- Abstract
- Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
- Date
- 9. 7.2006 10:22:35
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.549-568
-
Hellqvist, B.: Referencing in the humanities and its implications for citation analysis (2010)
0.03
0.03009541 = product of:
0.08025443 = sum of:
0.05186718 = weight(_text_:use in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05186718 = score(doc=3329,freq=6.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.4101866 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
0.020662563 = weight(_text_:of in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020662563 = score(doc=3329,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
0.007724685 = product of:
0.01544937 = sum of:
0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01544937 = score(doc=3329,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- This article studies citation practices in the arts and humanities from a theoretical and conceptual viewpoint, drawing on studies from fields like linguistics, history, library & information science, and the sociology of science. The use of references in the humanities is discussed in connection with the growing interest in the possibilities of applying citation analysis to humanistic disciplines. The study shows how the use of references within the humanities is connected to concepts of originality, to intellectual organization, and to searching and writing. Finally, it is acknowledged that the use of references is connected to stylistic, epistemological, and organizational differences, and these differences must be taken into account when applying citation analysis to humanistic disciplines.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.310-318
-
Cawkell, T.: Checking research progress on 'image retrieval by shape matching' using the Web of Science (1998)
0.03
0.028855579 = product of:
0.07694821 = sum of:
0.041327372 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041327372 = score(doc=3571,freq=4.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 3571, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3571)
0.024696484 = weight(_text_:of in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024696484 = score(doc=3571,freq=20.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 3571, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3571)
0.010924355 = product of:
0.02184871 = sum of:
0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02184871 = score(doc=3571,freq=4.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 3571, 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=3571)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- Discusses the Web of Science database recently introduced by ISI, and which is compiled from 8.000 journals covered in the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Briefly compares the database with the Citation Indexes as provided by the BIDS service at the University of Bath. Explores the characteristics and usefulness of the WoS through a search of it for articles on the topic of image retrieval by shape matching. Suggests that the selection of articles of interest is much easier and far quicker using the WoS than other methods of conducting a search using ISI's data
- Object
- Web of Science
-
He, Y.; Hui, S.C.: PubSearch : a Web citation-based retrieval system (2001)
0.03
0.02663675 = product of:
0.07103133 = sum of:
0.050096344 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050096344 = score(doc=4806,freq=8.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 4806, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4806)
0.009466803 = weight(_text_:of in 4806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009466803 = score(doc=4806,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.14660224 = fieldWeight in 4806, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4806)
0.011468184 = product of:
0.022936368 = sum of:
0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 4806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022936368 = score(doc=4806,freq=6.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 4806, 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=4806)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- Many scientific publications are now available on the World Wide Web for researchers to share research findings. However, they tend to be poorly organised, making the search of relevant publications difficult and time-consuming. Most existing search engines are ineffective in searching these publications, as they do not index Web publications that normally appear in PDF (portable document format) or PostScript formats. Proposes a Web citation-based retrieval system, known as PubSearch, for the retrieval of Web publications. PubSearch indexes Web publications based on citation indices and stores them into a Web Citation Database. The Web Citation Database is then mined to support publication retrieval. Apart from supporting the traditional cited reference search, PubSearch also provides document clustering search and author clustering search. Document clustering groups related publications into clusters, while author clustering categorizes authors into different research areas based on author co-citation analysis.
-
MacRoberts, M.H.; MacRoberts, B.R.: ¬The mismeasure of science : citation analysis (2018)
0.03
0.026526235 = product of:
0.070736624 = sum of:
0.042349376 = weight(_text_:use in 4058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042349376 = score(doc=4058,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.33491597 = fieldWeight in 4058, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4058)
0.020662563 = weight(_text_:of in 4058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020662563 = score(doc=4058,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 4058, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4058)
0.007724685 = product of:
0.01544937 = sum of:
0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 4058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01544937 = score(doc=4058,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 4058, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4058)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- For several decades we, among others, have criticized the use of citations for evaluative purposes. Although these criticisms have been noted, they have been largely brushed aside or ignored, not addressed head on. This may be for a number of reasons, but we believe the main one is that these criticisms undermine the desire to have an easy "scientific"-that is, quantitative-method of evaluation. Consequently, we continue and update our criticism of the use of citations for evaluation.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.3, S.474-482
-
Araújo, P.C. de; Gutierres Castanha, R.C.; Hjoerland, B.: Citation indexing and indexes (2021)
0.03
0.025929535 = product of:
0.069145426 = sum of:
0.04338471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04338471 = score(doc=444,freq=6.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.016396983 = weight(_text_:of in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016396983 = score(doc=444,freq=12.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.009363732 = product of:
0.018727465 = sum of:
0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018727465 = score(doc=444,freq=4.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 444, 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=444)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.
- Object
- Web of Science
- Series
- Reviews of Concepts in Knowledge Organization
-
Zhao, D.: Challenges of scholarly publications on the Web to the evaluation of science : a comparison of author visibility on the Web and in print journals (2005)
0.03
0.025809014 = product of:
0.06882404 = sum of:
0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029945528 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 1065, 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=1065)
0.02342914 = weight(_text_:of in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02342914 = score(doc=1065,freq=18.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
0.01544937 = product of:
0.03089874 = sum of:
0.03089874 = weight(_text_:on in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03089874 = score(doc=1065,freq=8.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 1065, 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=1065)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- This article reveals different patterns of scholarly communication in the XML research field on the Web and in print journals in terms of author visibility, and challenges the common practice of exclusively using the ISI's databases to obtain citation counts as scientific performance indicators. Results from this study demonstrate both the importance and the feasibility of the use of multiple citation data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication, and provide evidence for a developing "two tier" scholarly communication system.
- Footnote
- Beitrag in einem "Special Issue on Infometrics"
-
Moed, H.F.: Differences in the construction of SCI based bibliometric indicators among various producers : a first overview (1996)
0.03
0.025611179 = product of:
0.06829648 = sum of:
0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 5073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03422346 = score(doc=5073,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 5073, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5073)
0.025244808 = weight(_text_:of in 5073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025244808 = score(doc=5073,freq=16.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 5073, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5073)
0.008828212 = product of:
0.017656423 = sum of:
0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 5073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017656423 = score(doc=5073,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 5073, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5073)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- Discusses basic technical methodological issues with respect to data collection and the construction of bibliometric indicators, particular at the macro or meso level. Focuses on the use of the Science Citation Index. Aims to highlight important decisions that have to be made in the process of data collection and the construction of bibliometric indicators. Illustrates differences in the methodologies applied by several important producers of bibliometric indicators, thus illustrating the complexity of the process of 'standardization'
-
Tho, Q.T.; Hui, S.C.; Fong, A.C.M.: ¬A citation-based document retrieval system for finding research expertise (2007)
0.03
0.025392082 = product of:
0.06771222 = sum of:
0.035423465 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035423465 = score(doc=956,freq=4.0), product of:
0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 956, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=956)
0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025667597 = score(doc=956,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 956, 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=956)
0.006621159 = product of:
0.013242318 = sum of:
0.013242318 = weight(_text_:on in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013242318 = score(doc=956,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 956, 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=956)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- Current citation-based document retrieval systems generally offer only limited search facilities, such as author search. In order to facilitate more advanced search functions, we have developed a significantly improved system that employs two novel techniques: Context-based Cluster Analysis (CCA) and Context-based Ontology Generation frAmework (COGA). CCA aims to extract relevant information from clusters originally obtained from disparate clustering methods by building relationships between them. The built relationships are then represented as formal context using the Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) technique. COGA aims to generate ontology from clusters relationship built by CCA. By combining these two techniques, we are able to perform ontology learning from a citation database using clustering results. We have implemented the improved system and have demonstrated its use for finding research domain expertise. We have also conducted performance evaluation on the system and the results are encouraging.
-
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
-
Small, H.: Visualizing science by citation mapping (1999)
0.02
0.02458739 = product of:
0.06556637 = sum of:
0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 3920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029945528 = score(doc=3920,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 3920, 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=3920)
0.024696484 = weight(_text_:of in 3920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024696484 = score(doc=3920,freq=20.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 3920, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3920)
0.010924355 = product of:
0.02184871 = sum of:
0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 3920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02184871 = score(doc=3920,freq=4.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 3920, 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=3920)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- Science mapping is discussed in the general context of information visualization. Attempts to construct maps of science using citation data are reviewed, focusing on the use of co-citation clusters. New work is reported on a dataset of about 36.000 documents using simplified methods for ordination, and nesting maps hierarchically. an overall map of the dataset shows the multidisciplinary breadth of the document sample, and submaps allow drilling down the document level. An effort to visualize these data using advanced virtual reality software is described, and the creation of document pathways through the map is seen as a realization of Bush's associative trails
- Object
- Web of Science
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.9, S.799-813
-
Fujigaki, Y.: ¬The citation system : citation networks as repeatedly focusing on difference, continuous re-evaluation, and as persistent knowledge accumulation (1998)
0.02
0.024342868 = product of:
0.064914316 = sum of:
0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03422346 = score(doc=5129,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 5129, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5129)
0.021862645 = weight(_text_:of in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021862645 = score(doc=5129,freq=12.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 5129, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5129)
0.008828212 = product of:
0.017656423 = sum of:
0.017656423 = weight(_text_:on in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017656423 = score(doc=5129,freq=2.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 5129, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5129)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- States that it can be shown that claims of a lack of theories of citation are also indicative of a great need for a theory which links science dynamics and measurement. There is a wide gap between qualitative (science dynamics) and quantitative (measurement) approaches. To link them, proposes the use of the citation system, that potentially bridges a gap between measurement and epistemology, by applying system theory to the publication system
- Footnote
- Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'
-
Moed, H.F.; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Reedijk, J.: ¬A new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors (1998)
0.02
0.024277966 = product of:
0.06474125 = sum of:
0.01711173 = weight(_text_:use in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01711173 = score(doc=4719,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.13532647 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018933605 = score(doc=4719,freq=36.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
36.0 = termFreq=36.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
0.02869591 = product of:
0.05739182 = sum of:
0.05739182 = weight(_text_:line in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05739182 = score(doc=4719,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.24783395 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- During the past decades, journal impact data obtained from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) have gained relevance in library management, research management and research evaluation. Hence, both information scientists and bibliometricians share the responsibility towards the users of the JCR to analyse the reliability and validity of its measures thoroughly, to indicate pitfalls and to suggest possible improvements. In this article, ageing patterns are examined in 'formal' use or impact of all scientific journals processed for the Science Citation Index (SCI) during 1981-1995. A new classification system of journals in terms of their ageing characteristics is introduced. This system has been applied to as many as 3,098 journals covered by the Science Citation Index. Following an earlier suggestion by Glnzel and Schoepflin, a maturing and a decline phase are distinguished. From an analysis across all subfields it has been concluded that ageing characteristics are primarily specific to the individual journal rather than to the subfield, while the distribution of journals in terms of slowly or rapidly maturing or declining types is specific to the subfield. It is shown that the cited half life (CHL), printed in the JCR, is an inappropriate measure of decline of journal impact. Following earlier work by Line and others, a more adequate parameter of decline is calculated taking into account the size of annual volumes during a range of fifteen years. For 76 per cent of SCI journals the relative difference between this new parameter and the ISI CHL exceeds 5 per cent. The current JCR journal impact factor is proven to be biased towards journals revealing a rapid maturing and decline in impact. Therefore, a longer term impact factor is proposed, as well as a normalised impact statistic, taking into account citation characteristics of the research subfield covered by a journal and the type of documents published in it. When these new measures are combined with the proposed ageing classification system, they provide a significantly improved picture of a journal's impact to that obtained from the JCR.
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 54(1998) no.4, S.387-419
-
Garfield, E.: Agony and ecstasy of the Internet : experiences of an information scientist qua publisher (1996)
0.02
0.024196766 = product of:
0.06452471 = sum of:
0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 3044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029945528 = score(doc=3044,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 3044, 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=3044)
0.019129815 = weight(_text_:of in 3044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019129815 = score(doc=3044,freq=12.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 3044, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3044)
0.01544937 = product of:
0.03089874 = sum of:
0.03089874 = weight(_text_:on in 3044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03089874 = score(doc=3044,freq=8.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 3044, 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=3044)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- Reports recent experiences with the publishing, via the Internet and WWW of ISI's biweekly newspaper, The Scientist; which was originally mounted on the NSFnet. Compares the use of the Internet for SDI by comparing Web searches via AltaVista with similar searches on CD-ROM. Predicts that future current awareness services and SDI services will be linked to electronic periodicals in electronic libraries. Concludes with a note on cited reference searching, a variation on the theme of hypertext searching, with particular reference to SCI and Web crawlers
- Source
- Towards a worldwide library: a ten year forecast. Proceedings of the 19th International Essen Symposium, 23-26 Sept 1996. Ed.: A.H. Helal u. J.W. Weiss
-
Scharnhorst, A.: Citation - networks, science landscapes and evolutionary strategies (1998)
0.02
0.024112135 = product of:
0.064299025 = sum of:
0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 5126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029945528 = score(doc=5126,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 5126, 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=5126)
0.02342914 = weight(_text_:of in 5126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02342914 = score(doc=5126,freq=18.0), product of:
0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 5126, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5126)
0.010924355 = product of:
0.02184871 = sum of:
0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 5126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02184871 = score(doc=5126,freq=4.0), product of:
0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
0.041294612 = queryNorm
0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 5126, 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=5126)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- The construction of virtual science landscapes based on citation networks and the strategic use of the information therein shed new light on the issues of the evolution of the science system and possibilities for control. Leydesdorff's approach to citation theory described in his 1998 article (see this issue of LISA) takes into account the dual layered character of communication networks and the second order nature of the science system. This perspective may help to sharpen the awareness of scientists and science policy makers for possible feedback loops within actions and activities in the science system, and probably nonlinear phenomena resulting therefrom. Sketches an additional link to geometrically oriented evolutionary theories and uses a specific landscape concept as a framework for some comments
- Footnote
- Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?
