Search (91 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013) 0.07 
    0.07450074 = product of:
  0.29800296 = sum of:
    0.29800296 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29800296 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39767802 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
  2. Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015) 0.02 
    0.021643031 = product of:
  0.086572126 = sum of:
    0.086572126 = sum of:
      0.04163372 = weight(_text_:management in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04163372 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
      0.044938404 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044938404 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    17. 9.2018 18:22:23
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.1, S.27-54
  3. Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014) 0.02 
    0.01836472 = product of:
  0.07345888 = sum of:
    0.07345888 = sum of:
      0.035327382 = weight(_text_:management in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035327382 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
      0.038131498 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038131498 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Patent analysis has become important for management as it offers timely and valuable information to evaluate R&D performance and identify the prospects of patents. This study explores the scattering patterns of patent impact based on citations in 3 distinct technological areas, the liquid crystal, semiconductor, and drug technological areas, to identify the core patents in each area. The research follows the approach from Bradford's law, which equally divides total citations into 3 zones. While the result suggests that the scattering of patent citations corresponded with features of Bradford's law, the proportion of patents in the 3 zones did not match the proportion as proposed by the law. As a result, the study shows that the distributions of citations in all 3 areas were more concentrated than what Bradford's law proposed. The Groos (1967) droop was also presented by the scattering of patent citations, and the growth rate of cumulative citation decreased in the third zone.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:11:29
  4. Kumar, S.: Co-authorship networks : a review of the literature (2015) 0.02 
    0.01836472 = product of:
  0.07345888 = sum of:
    0.07345888 = sum of:
      0.035327382 = weight(_text_:management in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035327382 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2586, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2586)
      0.038131498 = weight(_text_:22 in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038131498 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2586, 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=2586)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.1, S.55-73
  5. Liu, D.-R.; Shih, M.-J.: Hybrid-patent classification based on patent-network analysis (2011) 0.02 
    0.018352494 = product of:
  0.073409975 = sum of:
    0.073409975 = sum of:
      0.04163372 = weight(_text_:management in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04163372 = score(doc=4189,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
      0.03177625 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03177625 = score(doc=4189,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4189, 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=4189)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Effective patent management is essential for organizations to maintain their competitive advantage. The classification of patents is a critical part of patent management and industrial analysis. This study proposes a hybrid-patent-classification approach that combines a novel patent-network-based classification method with three conventional classification methods to analyze query patents and predict their classes. The novel patent network contains various types of nodes that represent different features extracted from patent documents. The nodes are connected based on the relationship metrics derived from the patent metadata. The proposed classification method predicts a query patent's class by analyzing all reachable nodes in the patent network and calculating their relevance to the query patent. It then classifies the query patent with a modified k-nearest neighbor classifier. To further improve the approach, we combine it with content-based, citation-based, and metadata-based classification methods to develop a hybrid-classification approach. We evaluate the performance of the hybrid approach on a test dataset of patent documents obtained from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and compare its performance with that of the three conventional methods. The results demonstrate that the proposed patent-network-based approach yields more accurate class predictions than the patent network-based approach.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:04:21
  6. Costas, R.; Zahedi, Z.; Wouters, P.: ¬The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media : large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations (2015) 0.02 
    0.015303934 = product of:
  0.061215736 = sum of:
    0.061215736 = sum of:
      0.029439485 = weight(_text_:management in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029439485 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.03177625 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03177625 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.3, S.260 - 288
  7. Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.02 
    0.015303934 = product of:
  0.061215736 = sum of:
    0.061215736 = sum of:
      0.029439485 = weight(_text_:management in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029439485 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
      0.03177625 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03177625 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, 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=3806)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.2, S.174-183
  8. Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017) 0.02 
    0.015303934 = product of:
  0.061215736 = sum of:
    0.061215736 = sum of:
      0.029439485 = weight(_text_:management in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029439485 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
      0.03177625 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03177625 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.6, S.674-687
  9. Pellack, L.J.; Kappmeyer, L.O.: ¬The ripple effect of women's name changes in indexing, citation, and authority control (2011) 0.02 
    0.015124108 = product of:
  0.06049643 = sum of:
    0.06049643 = weight(_text_:services in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06049643 = score(doc=4347,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.3512885 = fieldWeight in 4347, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4347)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study investigated name changes of women authors to determine how they were represented in indexes and cited references and identify problem areas. A secondary purpose of the study was to investigate whether or not indexing services were using authority control and how this influenced the search results. The works of eight library science authors who had published under multiple names were examined. The researchers compared author names as they appeared on title pages of publications versus in four online databases and in bibliographies by checking 380 publications and 1,159 citations. Author names were correctly provided 81.22% of the time in indexing services and 90.94% in citation lists. The lowest accuracy (54.55%) occurred when limiting to publications found in Library Literature. The highest accuracy (94.18%) occurred with works published before a surname changed. Author names in indexes and citations correctly matched names on journal articles more often than for any other type of publication. Indexes and citation style manuals treated author names in multiple ways, often altering names substantially from how they appear on the title page. Recommendations are made for changes in editorial styles by indexing services and by the authors themselves to help alleviate future confusion in author name searching.
  10. Leydesdorff, L.; Wagner, C.S.; Porto-Gomez, I.; Comins, J.A.; Phillips, F.: Synergy in the knowledge base of U.S. innovation systems at national, state, and regional levels : the contributions of high-tech manufacturing and knowledge-intensive services (2019) 0.02 
    0.015124108 = product of:
  0.06049643 = sum of:
    0.06049643 = weight(_text_:services in 5390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06049643 = score(doc=5390,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.3512885 = fieldWeight in 5390, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5390)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Using information theory, we measure innovation systemness as synergy among size-classes, ZIP Codes, and technological classes (NACE-codes) for 8.5 million American companies. The synergy at the national level is decomposed at the level of states, Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSA), and Combined Statistical Areas (CSA). We zoom in to the state of California and in more detail to Silicon Valley. Our results do not support the assumption of a national system of innovations in the U.S.A. Innovation systems appear to operate at the level of the states; the CBSA are too small, so that systemness spills across their borders. Decomposition of the sample in terms of high-tech manufacturing (HTM), medium-high-tech manufacturing (MHTM), knowledge-intensive services (KIS), and high-tech services (HTKIS) does not change this pattern, but refines it. The East Coast-New Jersey, Boston, and New York-and California are the major players, with Texas a third one in the case of HTKIS. Chicago and industrial centers in the Midwest also contribute synergy. Within California, Los Angeles contributes synergy in the sectors of manufacturing, the San Francisco area in KIS. KIS in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area-a CSA composed of seven CBSA-spill over to other regions and even globally.
  11. Ortega, J.L.; Aguillo, I.F.: Microsoft academic search and Google scholar citations : comparative analysis of author profiles (2014) 0.01 
    0.014818538 = product of:
  0.059274152 = sum of:
    0.059274152 = weight(_text_:services in 1284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059274152 = score(doc=1284,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.344191 = fieldWeight in 1284, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1284)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This article offers a comparative analysis of the personal profiling capabilities of the two most important free citation-based academic search engines, namely, Microsoft Academic Search (MAS) and Google Scholar Citations (GSC). Author profiles can be useful for evaluation purposes once the advantages and the shortcomings of these services are described and taken into consideration. In total, 771 personal profiles appearing in both the MAS and the GSC databases were analyzed. Results show that the GSC profiles include more documents and citations than those in MAS but with a strong bias toward the information and computing sciences, whereas the MAS profiles are disciplinarily better balanced. MAS shows technical problems such as a higher number of duplicated profiles and a lower updating rate than GSC. It is concluded that both services could be used for evaluation proposes only if they are applied along with other citation indices as a way to supplement that information.
  12. Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017) 0.01 
    0.012243148 = product of:
  0.04897259 = sum of:
    0.04897259 = sum of:
      0.023551589 = weight(_text_:management in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023551589 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.025421001 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025421001 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.5, S.557-575
  13. Torres-Salinas, D.; Gorraiz, J.; Robinson-Garcia, N.: ¬The insoluble problems of books : what does Altmetric.com have to offer? (2018) 0.01 
    0.012243148 = product of:
  0.04897259 = sum of:
    0.04897259 = sum of:
      0.023551589 = weight(_text_:management in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023551589 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
      0.025421001 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025421001 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, 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=4633)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 70(2018) no.6, S.691-707
  14. Robinson, L.; Maguire, M.: ¬The rhizome and the tree : changing metaphors for information organisation (2010) 0.01 
    0.012224671 = product of:
  0.048898686 = sum of:
    0.048898686 = weight(_text_:services in 3957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048898686 = score(doc=3957,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 3957, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3957)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The paper aims to review Deleuze and Guttari's concept of the rhizome as a model for information organisation. Design/methodology/approach - This is a critical review of selected literature. Findings - The rhizome concept is a promising model for understanding hyperlinked information services. It may be of practical value, particularly if it can be integrated with more traditional forms of information organisation. More research, conceptual and practical, is needed before this can be achieved. Research limitations/implications - The literature review is not comprehensive, and the conclusions are open-ended. Originality/value - This is the only paper to review the rhizome concept in this way.
  15. Shah, T.A.; Gul, S.; Gaur, R.C.: Authors self-citation behaviour in the field of Library and Information Science (2015) 0.01 
    0.010712754 = product of:
  0.042851016 = sum of:
    0.042851016 = sum of:
      0.02060764 = weight(_text_:management in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02060764 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.13034125 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
      0.022243375 = weight(_text_:22 in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022243375 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.4, S.458-468
  16. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.01 
    0.009532874 = product of:
  0.038131498 = sum of:
    0.038131498 = product of:
      0.076262996 = sum of:
        0.076262996 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076262996 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  17. Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015) 0.01 
    0.00918236 = product of:
  0.03672944 = sum of:
    0.03672944 = sum of:
      0.017663691 = weight(_text_:management in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017663691 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.11172107 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.019065749 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019065749 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.3, S.260-288
  18. Ronda-Pupo, G.A.; Katz, J.S.: ¬The power-law relationship between citation-based performance and collaboration in articles in management journals : a scale-independent approach scale-independent approach (2016) 0.01 
    0.008831846 = product of:
  0.035327382 = sum of:
    0.035327382 = product of:
      0.070654765 = sum of:
        0.070654765 = weight(_text_:management in 3127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070654765 = score(doc=3127,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.44688427 = fieldWeight in 3127, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The objective of this article is to determine if academic collaboration is associated with the citation-based performance of articles that are published in management journals. We analyzed 127,812 articles published between 1988 and 2013 in 173 journals on the ISI Web of Science in the "management" category. Collaboration occurred in approximately 60% of all articles. A power-law relationship was found between citation-based performance and journal size and collaboration patterns. The number of citations expected by collaborative articles increases 21.89 or 3.7 times when the number of collaborative articles published in a journal doubles. The number of citations expected by noncollaborative articles only increases 21.35 or 2.55 times if a journal publishes double the number of noncollaborative articles. The Matthew effect is stronger for collaborative than for noncollaborative articles. Scale-independent indicators increase the confidence in the evaluation of the impact of the articles published in management journals.
  19. Serenko, A.; Bontis, N.: ¬A critical evaluation of expert survey-based journal rankings : the role of personal research interests (2018) 0.01 
    0.008831846 = product of:
  0.035327382 = sum of:
    0.035327382 = product of:
      0.070654765 = sum of:
        0.070654765 = weight(_text_:management in 4228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070654765 = score(doc=4228,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.44688427 = fieldWeight in 4228, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    By using the data from two recent survey-based rankings of knowledge management / intellectual capital and eHealth journals, this study tests the impact of personal research interests of journal raters on their ranking scores. The rationale is that raters assign higher scores to journals that cater to their area of expertise because they are more familiar with them. The results indicate the existence of raters' bias toward the journals focusing on their preferred areas of interest, but this bias does not uniformly apply across all research topics. In some subdomains, such as intellectual capital, this bias may be very strong, whereas in others, such as soft-side knowledge management research, it may be nonexistent. Although management eHealth researchers rate management-focused journals higher than their clinical-centered counterparts, this bias does not exist among scholars favoring clinical topics. While this limitation is not fatal, the results from expert-survey journal ranking studies should be interpreted with caution.
  20. Kozak, M.; Iefremova, O.; Szkola, J.; Sas, D.: Do researchers provide public or institutional E-mail accounts as correspondence E-mails in scientific articles? (2015) 0.01 
    0.008731907 = product of:
  0.03492763 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 2226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=2226,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 2226, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2226)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Whether one should use a public e-mail account (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo!) or an institutional one (e.g., @wsiz.rzeszow.pl, @medicine.ox.ac.uk) as an address for correspondence is an important aspect of scientific communication. Some authors consider that public e-mail services are unprofessional and insecure, whereas others say that, in a dynamically changing working environment, public e-mail addresses allow readers to contact authors long after they have changed their workplace. To shed light on this issue, we analyzed how often authors of scientific papers provided e-mail addresses that were either public or institution based. We selected from the Web of Science database 1,000 frequently cited and 1,000 infrequently cited articles (all of the latter were noncited articles) published in 2000, 2005, and 2010, and from these we analyzed 26,937 e-mail addresses. The results showed that approximately three fourths of these addresses were institutional, but there was an increasing trend toward using public e-mail addresses over the period studied. No significant differences were found between frequently and infrequently cited papers in this respect. Further research is now needed to access the motivations and perceptions of scholars when it comes to their use of either public or institutional e-mail accounts.

Authors

Languages

  • e 86
  • d 5
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 88
  • m 3
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications