Search (275 results, page 1 of 14)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Brooks, T.A.: How good are the best papers of JASIS? (2000) 0.08 
    0.07779418 = product of:
  0.10372557 = sum of:
    0.00868892 = weight(_text_:a in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00868892 = score(doc=4593,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
    0.064343356 = weight(_text_:et in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064343356 = score(doc=4593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20686594 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.3110389 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
    0.03069329 = product of:
      0.06138658 = sum of:
        0.06138658 = weight(_text_:al in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06138658 = score(doc=4593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205697 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.30380827 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    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)
    Type
    a
  2. Garfield, E.: Citation indexes for science (1985) 0.06 
    0.055529114 = product of:
  0.07403882 = sum of:
    0.010681051 = weight(_text_:a in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010681051 = score(doc=3632,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.21010503 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
    0.042895574 = weight(_text_:et in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042895574 = score(doc=3632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20686594 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
    0.020462193 = product of:
      0.040924385 = sum of:
        0.040924385 = weight(_text_:al in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040924385 = score(doc=3632,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205697 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Indexes in general seek to provide a "key" to a body of literature intending to help the user in identifying, verifying, and/or locating individual or related items. The most common devices for collocation in indexes are authors' names and subjects. A different approach to collocating related items in an index is provided by a method called "citation indexing." Citation indexes attempt to link items through citations or references, in other works, by bringing together items cited in a particular work and the works citing a particular item. Citation indexing is based an the concept that there is a significant intellectual link between a document and each bibliographic item cited in it and that this link is useful to the scholar because an author's references to earlier writings identify relevant information to the subject of his current work. One of the major differences between the citation index and the traditional subject index is that the former, while listing current literature, also provides a retrospec tive view of past literature. While each issue of a traditional index is normally concerned only with the current literature, the citation index brings back retrospective literature in the form of cited references, thereby linking current scholarly works with earlier works. The advantages of the citation index have been considered to be its value as a tool for tracing the history of ideas or discoveries, for associating ideas between current and past work, and for evaluating works of individual authors or library collections. The concept of citation indexing is not new. It has been applied to legal literature since 1873 in a legal reference tool called Shepard's Citations. In the 1950s Eugene Garfield, a documentation consultant and founder and President of the Institute for Scientific Information (Philadelphia), developed the technique of citation indexing for scientific literature. This new application was facilitated by the availability of computer technology, resulting in a series of services: Science Citation Index (1955- ), Social Sciences Citation Index (1966- ), and the Arts & Humanities Index (1976- ). All three appear in printed versions and as machine-readable databases. In the following essay, the first in a series of articles and books elucidating the citation indexing system, Garfield traces the origin and beginning of this idea, its advantages, and the methods of preparing such indexes.
    Source
    Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al
    Type
    a
  3. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.03 
    0.029074889 = product of:
  0.058149777 = sum of:
    0.010362141 = weight(_text_:a in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010362141 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.047787637 = product of:
      0.09557527 = sum of:
        0.09557527 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09557527 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
    Type
    a
  4. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.03 
    0.029074889 = product of:
  0.058149777 = sum of:
    0.010362141 = weight(_text_:a in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010362141 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
    0.047787637 = product of:
      0.09557527 = sum of:
        0.09557527 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09557527 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    7. 2.2005 14:10:22
    Type
    a
  5. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02 
    0.02435752 = product of:
  0.04871504 = sum of:
    0.006476338 = weight(_text_:a in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006476338 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
    0.0422387 = product of:
      0.0844774 = sum of:
        0.0844774 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0844774 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
    Type
    a
  6. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.02 
    0.018171806 = product of:
  0.03634361 = sum of:
    0.006476338 = weight(_text_:a in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006476338 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
    0.029867273 = product of:
      0.059734546 = sum of:
        0.059734546 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059734546 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
    Type
    a
  7. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.02 
    0.016450718 = product of:
  0.032901436 = sum of:
    0.011994347 = weight(_text_:a in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011994347 = score(doc=6920,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
    0.020907091 = product of:
      0.041814182 = sum of:
        0.041814182 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041814182 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Over a 35-year period, Irving H. Sher played a critical role in the development and implementation of the Science Citation Index and other ISI products. Trained as a biochemist, statistician, and linguist, Sher brought a unique combination of talents to ISI as Director of Quality Control and Director of Research and Development. His talents as a teacher and mentor evoked loyalty. He was a particularly inventive but self-taught programmer. In addition to the SCI, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index,
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
    Type
    a
  8. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.02 
    0.016450718 = product of:
  0.032901436 = sum of:
    0.011994347 = weight(_text_:a in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011994347 = score(doc=40,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
    0.020907091 = product of:
      0.041814182 = sum of:
        0.041814182 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041814182 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
    Type
    a
  9. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.02 
    0.01561048 = product of:
  0.03122096 = sum of:
    0.007327141 = weight(_text_:a in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007327141 = score(doc=1149,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
    0.023893818 = product of:
      0.047787637 = sum of:
        0.047787637 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047787637 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other.
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
    Type
    a
  10. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.02 
    0.015522082 = product of:
  0.031044165 = sum of:
    0.010137074 = weight(_text_:a in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010137074 = score(doc=5269,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
    0.020907091 = product of:
      0.041814182 = sum of:
        0.041814182 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041814182 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This comparative case study of the diffusion and nondiffusion over time of eight theories in the social sciences uses citation analysis, citation context analysis, content analysis, surveys of editorial review boards, and personal interviews with theorists to develop a model of the theory functions that facilitate theory diffusion throughout specific intellectual communities. Unlike previous work on the diffusion of theories as innovations, this theory functions model differs in several important respects from the findings of previous studies that employed Everett Rogers's classic typology of innovation characteristics that promote diffusion. The model is also presented as a contribution to a more integrated theory of citation.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
    Type
    a
  11. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.01 
    0.014788886 = product of:
  0.029577771 = sum of:
    0.011657409 = weight(_text_:a in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011657409 = score(doc=994,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
    Type
    a
  12. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.014614513 = product of:
  0.029229026 = sum of:
    0.003885803 = weight(_text_:a in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003885803 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.025343223 = product of:
      0.050686445 = sum of:
        0.050686445 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050686445 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
    Type
    a
  13. Ma, N.; Guan, J.; Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2008) 0.01 
    0.0133046415 = product of:
  0.026609283 = sum of:
    0.00868892 = weight(_text_:a in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00868892 = score(doc=2064,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2064, 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=2064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The paper attempts to provide an alternative method for measuring the importance of scientific papers based on the Google's PageRank. The method is a meaningful extension of the common integer counting of citations and is then experimented for bringing PageRank to the citation analysis in a large citation network. It offers a more integrated picture of the publications' influence in a specific field. We firstly calculate the PageRanks of scientific papers. The distributional characteristics and comparison with the traditionally used number of citations are then analyzed in detail. Furthermore, the PageRank is implemented in the evaluation of research influence for several countries in the field of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology during the time period of 2000-2005. Finally, some advantages of bringing PageRank to the citation analysis are concluded.
    Date
    31. 7.2008 14:22:05
    Type
    a
  14. Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996) 0.01 
    0.012325386 = product of:
  0.024650771 = sum of:
    0.0067304084 = weight(_text_:a in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067304084 = score(doc=4215,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
    Type
    a
  15. Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998) 0.01 
    0.012325386 = product of:
  0.024650771 = sum of:
    0.0067304084 = weight(_text_:a in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067304084 = score(doc=3692,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study to examine the patterns of self citation in 6 disciplines distributed among the physical and social sciences and humanities. Sample articles were examined to deermine the relative numbers and ages of self citations and citations to other in the bibliographies and to the exposure given to each type of citation in the text of the articles. significant differences were found in the number and age of citations between disciplines. Overall, 9% of all citations were self citations; 15% of physical sciences citations were self citations, as opposed to 6% in the social sciences and 3% in the humanities. Within disciplines, there was no significantly different amount of coverage between self citations and citations to others. Overall, it appears that a lack of substantive differences in self citation behaviour is consistent across disciplines
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:33:24
    Type
    a
  16. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.01 
    0.012325386 = product of:
  0.024650771 = sum of:
    0.0067304084 = weight(_text_:a in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067304084 = score(doc=201,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
    Type
    a
  17. Ding, Y.; Zhang, G.; Chambers, T.; Song, M.; Wang, X.; Zhai, C.: Content-based citation analysis : the next generation of citation analysis (2014) 0.01 
    0.012325386 = product of:
  0.024650771 = sum of:
    0.0067304084 = weight(_text_:a in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067304084 = score(doc=1521,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, 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=1521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Traditional citation analysis has been widely applied to detect patterns of scientific collaboration, map the landscapes of scholarly disciplines, assess the impact of research outputs, and observe knowledge transfer across domains. It is, however, limited, as it assumes all citations are of similar value and weights each equally. Content-based citation analysis (CCA) addresses a citation's value by interpreting each one based on its context at both the syntactic and semantic levels. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of CAA research in terms of its theoretical foundations, methodical approaches, and example applications. In addition, we highlight how increased computational capabilities and publicly available full-text resources have opened this area of research to vast possibilities, which enable deeper citation analysis, more accurate citation prediction, and increased knowledge discovery.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 16:52:04
    Type
    a
  18. wst: Cut-and-paste-Wissenschaft (2003) 0.01 
    0.011707859 = product of:
  0.023415718 = sum of:
    0.0054953555 = weight(_text_:a in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054953555 = score(doc=1270,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1270, 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=1270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Content
    "Mikhail Simkin und Vwani Roychowdhury von der University of Califomia, Los Angeles, haben eine in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft verbreitete Unsitte erstmals quantitativ erfasst. Die Wissenschaftler analysierten die Verbreitung von Druckfehlern in den Literaturlisten wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten (www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043). 78 Prozent aller zitierten Aufsätze - so schätzen die Forscher - haben die zitierenden Wissenschaftler demnach nicht gelesen, sondern nur per 'cut and paste' von einer Vorlage in ihre eigene Literaturliste übernommen. Das könne man beispielsweise abschätzen aus der Analyse fehlerhafter Seitenangaben in der Literaturliste eines 1973 veröffentlichten Aufsatzes über die Struktur zweidimensionaler Kristalle: Dieser Aufsatz ist rund 4300 mal zitiert worden. In 196 Fällen enthalten die Zitate jedoch Fehler in der Jahreszahl, dem Band der Zeitschrift oder der Seitenzahl, die als Indikatoren für cut and paste genommen werden können, denn man kann, obwohl es Milliarden Möglichkeiten gibt, nur 45 verschiedene Arten von Druckfehlern unterscheiden. In erster Näherung ergibt sich eine Obergrenze für die Zahl der `echten Leser' daher aus der Zahl der unterscheidbaren Druckfehler (45) geteilt durch die Gesamtzahl der Publikationen mit Druckfehler (196), das macht etwa 22 Prozent."
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch den Beitrag von H.F. Goenner zu A. Einstein und S.B. Preuss
    Type
    a
  19. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.01 
    0.010903083 = product of:
  0.021806166 = sum of:
    0.003885803 = weight(_text_:a in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003885803 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
    0.017920362 = product of:
      0.035840724 = sum of:
        0.035840724 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840724 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
    Type
    a
  20. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.01 
    0.00975655 = product of:
  0.0195131 = sum of:
    0.004579463 = weight(_text_:a in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004579463 = score(doc=1934,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05083672 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044089027 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
    0.014933636 = product of:
      0.029867273 = sum of:
        0.029867273 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029867273 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15439226 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044089027 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Um sich einer Antwort auf die Frage anzunähern, welche Bedeutung der Nachlass eines Wissenschaftlers wie jener Paul F. Lazarsfelds (mit zahlreichen noch unveröffentlichten Schriften) für die aktuelle Forschung haben könne, kann untersucht werden, wie häufig dieser Wissenschaftler zitiert wird. Wenn ein Autor zitiert wird, wird er auch genutzt. Wird er über einen langen Zeitraum oft genutzt, ist vermutlich auch die Auseinandersetzung mit seinem Nachlass von Nutzen. Außerdem kann aufgrund der Zitierungen festgestellt werden, was aus dem Lebenswerk eines Wissenschaftlers für die aktuelle Forschung relevant erscheint. Daraus können die vordringlichen Fragestellungen in der Bearbeitung des Nachlasses abgeleitet werden. Die Aufgabe für die folgende Untersuchung lautete daher: Wie oft wird Paul F. Lazarsfeld zitiert? Dabei interessierte auch: Wer zitiert wo? Die Untersuchung wurde mit Hilfe der Meta-Datenbank "ISI Web of Knowledge" durchgeführt. In dieser wurde im "Web of Science" mit dem Werkzeug "Cited Reference Search" nach dem zitierten Autor (Cited Author) "Lazarsfeld P*" gesucht. Diese Suche ergab 1535 Referenzen (References). Werden alle Referenzen gewählt, führt dies zu 4839 Ergebnissen (Results). Dabei wurden die Datenbanken SCI-Expanded, SSCI und A&HCI verwendet. Bei dieser Suche wurden die Publikationsjahre 1941-2008 analysiert. Vor 1956 wurden allerdings nur sehr wenige Zitate gefunden: 1946 fünf, ansonsten maximal drei, 1942-1944 und 1949 überhaupt keines. Zudem ist das Jahr 2008 noch lange nicht zu Ende. (Es gab jedoch schon vor Ende März 24 Zitate!)
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 235
  • d 38
  • chi 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 272
  • el 8
  • m 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications