Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008919551 = product of:
  0.035678204 = sum of:
    0.035678204 = weight(_text_:information in 8367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035678204 = score(doc=8367,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.40312737 = fieldWeight in 8367, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8367)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Online databases can be used for statistical analysis, creating new information. Discusses 4 methods applied to economic information: time series, rankings, semantic networks, and graphs of information flow

0.00664824 = product of:
  0.02659296 = sum of:
    0.02659296 = weight(_text_:information in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02659296 = score(doc=76,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3004734 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

According to Jean M. Tague-Sutcliffe "informetrics" is "the study of the quantitative aspects of information in any form, not just records or bibliographies, and in any social group, not just scientists" (Tague-Sutcliffe, 1992, 1). Leo Egghe also defines "informetrics" in a very broad sense. "(W)e will use the term' informetrics' as the broad term comprising all-metrics studies related to information science, including bibliometrics (bibliographies, libraries,...), scientometrics (science policy, citation analysis, research evaluation,...), webometrics (metrics of the web, the Internet or other social networks such as citation or collaboration networks), ..." (Egghe, 2005b,1311). According to Concepcion S. Wilson "informetrics" is "the quantitative study of collections of moderatesized units of potentially informative text, directed to the scientific understanding of information processes at the social level" (Wilson, 1999, 211). We should add to Wilson's units of text also digital collections of images, videos, spoken documents and music. Dietmar Wolfram divides "informetrics" into two aspects, "system-based characteristics that arise from the documentary content of IR systems and how they are indexed, and usage-based characteristics that arise how users interact with system content and the system interfaces that provide access to the content" (Wolfram, 2003, 6). We would like to follow Tague-Sutcliffe, Egghe, Wilson and Wolfram (and others, for example Björneborn & Ingwersen, 2004) and call this broad research of empirical information science "informetrics". Informetrics includes therefore all quantitative studies in information science. If a scientist performs scientific investigations empirically, e.g. on information users' behavior, on scientific impact of academic journals, on the development of the patent application activity of a company, on links of Web pages, on the temporal distribution of blog postings discussing a given topic, on availability, recall and precision of retrieval systems, on usability of Web sites, and so on, he or she contributes to informetrics. We see three subject areas in information science in which such quantitative research takes place, - information users and information usage, - evaluation of information systems, - information itself, Following Wolfram's article, we divide his system-based characteristics into the "information itself "-category and the "information system"-category. Figure 1 is a simplistic graph of subjects and research areas of informetrics as an empirical information science.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.385-389

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=472,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 472, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=472)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ein Besprechungsaufsatz zur Festschrift für E. Garfield: The Web of knowledge: Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield. Medford, NJ: Information Today 2000.

0.00424829 = product of:
  0.01699316 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 13) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=13,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 13, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=13)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Scientific documents are more or less important in relation to give subjects and this importance can be measured. An empirical investigation into philosophical information was carried out using a weighting algorithm developed by N. Henrichs which results in a distribution by weighting of documents on an average philosophical subject. With the aid of statistical methods a threshold value can be obtained that separates the important and unimportant documents on a subject. The knowledge of theis threshold value is important for various practical and theoretic questions: providing new possibilities for research strategy in information retrieval; evaluation of the 'titleworthiness' of subjects by comparison of document titles and themes for which the document at hand is important; and making available data on thematic trends for scientific results

0.0036413912 = product of:
  0.014565565 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 4931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=4931,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4931, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4931)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Dimensionen der Zeitschriftenszientometrie sind (1.) die Produktion der Zeitschrift (Artikel, Autoren), (2.) der Inhalt (Themen) (3.) die Rezeption (Leser), (4.) die formale Fachkommunikation (Referenzen, Zitationen) sowie (5.) die Redaktion (Redaktionspolitik, Verlag). Die Zeitschrift "BuB - Forum für Bibliothek und Information" (BuB) wird einer szientometrischen Analyse unterzogen. BuB ist die auflagenstärkste deutschsprachige Zeitschrift des Bibliotheks- und Informationswesens. Innerhalb des Beobachtungszeitraums von 1990 bis 2003 sind 4.297 Beiträge mit insgesamt 6.803 Referenzen intellektuell ausgewertet worden. Im Vergleich zu erwarteten informetrischen Regelmäßigkeiten zeigt BuB bemerkenswerte Besonderheiten: Nicht ein Top-Autor, sondern eine über Jahre hinweg recht homogene Gruppe von Verfassern dominiert die Literaturproduktion bei BuB. Bei den Referenzen zeigt sich eine sehr hohe Konzentration auf die eigene Zeitschrift. BuB gleicht einer Insel, an die nur wenige fremde Informationen angespült werden. Obwohl Männer und Frauen jeweils 50 Prozent der Beiträge erarbeiten, so gibt es doch sowohl Männerdomänen (vor allem Rezensionen, aber auch Aufsätze) als auch Frauendomänen (Kurzbeiträge und Tagungsberichte). Die Halbwertszeit der Referenzen ist mit 2,7 Jahre sehr niedrig, Halbwertszeiten zitierter Monographien sind dabei höher als die der zitierten Zeitschriftenartikel.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.1, S.31-37

0.0034331365 = product of:
  0.013732546 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=5249,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5249, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5249)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The goal of the scientometric analysis presented in this article was to investigate international and regional (i.e., German-language) periodicals in the field of library and information science (LIS). This was done by means of a citation analysis and a reader survey. For the citation analysis, impact factor, citing half-life, number of references per article, and the rate of self-references of a periodical were used as indicators. In addition, the leading LIS periodicals were mapped. For the 40 international periodicals, data were collected from ISI's Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Reports (JCR); the citations of the 10 German-language journals were counted manually (overall 1,494 source articles with 10,520 citations). Altogether, the empirical base of the citation analysis consisted of nearly 90,000 citations in 6,203 source articles that were published between 1997 and 2000. The expert survey investigated reading frequency, applicability of the journals to the job of the reader, publication frequency, and publication preference both for all respondents and for different groups among them (practitioners vs. scientists, librarians vs. documentalists vs. LIS scholars, public sector vs. information industry vs. other private company employees). The study was conducted in spring 2002. A total of 257 questionnaires were returned by information specialists from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Having both citation and readership data, we performed a comparative analysis of these two data sets. This enabled us to identify answers to questions like: Does reading behavior correlate with the journal impact factor? Do readers prefer journals with a short or a long half-life, or with a low or a high number of references? Is there any difference in this matter among librarians, documentalists, and LIS scholars?

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.13, S.1155-1168

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=79,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.391-400

0.0029731835 = product of:
  0.011892734 = sum of:
    0.011892734 = weight(_text_:information in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011892734 = score(doc=2343,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals. Design/methodology/approach - The research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey. Findings - It is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half-life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal. Research limitations/implications - This research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=5915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Gibt es objektive Kriterien für die Bestellung und Abbestellung wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften? Wie lange sollte eine Bibliothek Periodikabestände benutzernah aufstellen? Kann ein Verlag -außer via Verkaufszahlen - auf Kriterien des Erfolgs seiner Zeitschriften zurückgreifen? Hat ein Autor eine Entscheidungsgrundlage, welcher Zeitschrift er seinen Artikel anbietet? Ist die Forschungsaktivität eines Instituts oder eines Wissenschaftlers über den Impact derjenigen Zeitschriftentitel zu evaluieren, die die Forschungsergebnisse drucken? Können die 'Journal Citation Reports (JCR) "des "Institute for Scientific Information" bei der Klärung solcher Fragen helfen? Sind die JCR ein nützliches oder gar ein notwendiges Hilfsmittel für Bibliotheken, für Verlage, für Wissenschaftsmanager und für wissenschaftliche Autoren? Die 'Journal Citation Reports" geben im Jahresrhythmus informetrische Kennzahlen wie die Zitationsrate, den Impact Factor, den Immediacy Index, die Halbwertszeit für eine Auswahl wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften an. Zusätzlich berichten sie darüber, weiche Zeitschriften weiche anderen Zeitschriften zitieren bzw. von diesen zitiert werden, so dass "Soziogramme" wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftenkommunikation entstehen. Wir wollen am Beispiel des aktuellen Jahrgangs ( 1999) die JCR detailliert beschreiben, die Auswahlkriterien der Zeitschriften beleuchten, die verwendeten informetrischen Kennwerte - vor allem den Impact Factor - kritisch hinterfragen, um danach die Einsatzgebiete bei Bibliotheken, in der Wissenschaftsevaluation, bei Verlagen und bei Autoren zu diskutieren. Das Fazit sei vorweggenommen: Die JCR sind ein nicht umgehbares Hilfsmittel für die fokussierten Anwendungsbereiche. Sie sind mitnichten frei von Problemen. Wir schließen daher mit einigen Verbesserungsvorschlägen