-
Glanzel, W.: ¬The need for standards in bibliometric research and technology (1996)
0.07
0.07308527 = product of:
0.14617054 = sum of:
0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 7549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012015978 = score(doc=7549,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 7549, 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=7549)
0.13415456 = weight(_text_:standards in 7549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13415456 = score(doc=7549,freq=6.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.5970379 = fieldWeight in 7549, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7549)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Discusses the need for standardization in bibliometric research and technology in the context of failing communication within the scientific community, the unsatisfactory impact of bibliometric research outside the community and the observed incompatibility of bibliometric indicators produced by different institutes. The development of bibliometric standards is necessary to improve the reliability of bibliometric results, to guarantee the validity of bibliometric methods and to make bibliometric data compatible. Raises both conceptual and technical questions. Illustrates consequences of lacking standards by typical examples. Finally, proposes particular topics for standardization based on experiments at the Information Science and Scientometrics Research Unit, Hungary
-
Castanha, R.C.G.; Wolfram, D.: ¬The domain of knowledge organization : a bibliometric analysis of prolific authors and their intellectual space (2018)
0.06
0.06472824 = product of:
0.12945648 = sum of:
0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008582841 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
0.12087364 = sum of:
0.08672052 = weight(_text_:organization in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08672052 = score(doc=4150,freq=12.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.48245144 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03415312 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Cardona, M.: Reference standards and reference multipliers for the comparison of the citation impact of papers published in different time periods (2010)
0.06
0.05961582 = product of:
0.11923164 = sum of:
0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008582841 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3998, 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=3998)
0.1106488 = weight(_text_:standards in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1106488 = score(doc=3998,freq=8.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.49242854 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- In this study, reference standards and reference multipliers are suggested as a means to compare the citation impact of earlier research publications in physics (from the period of "Little Science" in the early 20th century) with that of contemporary papers (from the period of "Big Science," beginning around 1960). For the development of time-specific reference standards, the authors determined (a) the mean citation rates of papers in selected physics journals as well as (b) the mean citation rates of all papers in physics published in 1900 (Little Science) and in 2000 (Big Science); this was accomplished by relying on the processes of field-specific standardization in bibliometry. For the sake of developing reference multipliers with which the citation impact of earlier papers can be adjusted to the citation impact of contemporary papers, they combined the reference standards calculated for 1900 and 2000 into their ratio. The use of reference multipliers is demonstrated by means of two examples involving the time adjusted h index values for Max Planck and Albert Einstein.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.10, S.2061-20690
-
Freitas, J.L.; Gabriel Jr., R.F.; Bufrem, L.S.: Theoretical approximations between Brazilian and Spanish authors' production in the field of knowledge organization in the production of journals on information science in Brazil (2012)
0.06
0.055215728 = product of:
0.110431455 = sum of:
0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013732546 = score(doc=144,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 144, 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=144)
0.09669891 = sum of:
0.06937642 = weight(_text_:organization in 144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06937642 = score(doc=144,freq=12.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.38596115 = fieldWeight in 144, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=144)
0.027322493 = weight(_text_:22 in 144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027322493 = score(doc=144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 144, 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=144)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This work identifies and analyzes literature about knowledge organization (KO), expressed in scientific journals' communication of information science (IS). It performs an exploratory study on the Base de Dados Referencial de Artigos de Periódicos em Ciência da Informação (BRAPCI, Reference Database of Journal Articles on Information Science) between the years 2000 and 2010. The descriptors relating to "knowledge organization" are used in order to recover and analyze the corresponding articles and to identify descriptors and concepts which integrate the semantic universe related to KO. Through the analysis of content, based on metrical studies, this article gathers and interprets data relating to documents and authors. Through this, it demonstrates the development of this field and its research fronts according to the observed characteristics, as well as noting the transformation indicative in the production of knowledge. The work describes the influences of the Spanish researchers on Brazilian literature in the fields of knowledge and information organization. As a result, it presents the most cited and productive authors, the theoretical currents which support them, and the most significant relationships of the Spanish-Brazilian authors network. Based on the constant key-words analysis in the cited articles, the co-existence of the French conception current and the incipient Spanish influence in Brazil is observed. Through this, it contributes to the comprehension of the thematic range relating to KO, stimulating both criticism and self-criticism, debate and knowledge creation, based on studies that have been developed and institutionalized in academic contexts in Spain and Brazil.
- Content
- Beitrag einer Section "Selected Papers from the 1ST Brazilian Conference on Knowledge Organization And Representation, Faculdade de Ciência da Informação, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro Brasília, DF Brasil, October 20-22, 2011" Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_3_g.pdf.
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.3, S.204-215
-
Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015)
0.05
0.049284615 = product of:
0.09856923 = sum of:
0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014865918 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.08370331 = sum of:
0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035403505 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.0482998 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0482998 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review : a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere (2008)
0.05
0.04911471 = product of:
0.09822942 = sum of:
0.009710376 = weight(_text_:information in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009710376 = score(doc=2381,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.088519044 = score(doc=2381,freq=8.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- All journals that use peer review have to deal with the following question: Does the peer review system fulfill its declared objective to select the best scientific work? We investigated the journal peer-review process at Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), one of the prime chemistry journals worldwide, and conducted a citation analysis for Communications that were accepted by the journal (n = 878) or rejected but published elsewhere (n = 959). The results of negative binomial-regression models show that holding all other model variables constant, being accepted by AC-IE increases the expected number of citations by up to 50%. A comparison of average citation counts (with 95% confidence intervals) of accepted and rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications with international scientific reference standards was undertaken. As reference standards, (a) mean citation counts for the journal set provided by Thomson Reuters corresponding to the field chemistry and (b) specific reference standards that refer to the subject areas of Chemical Abstracts were used. When compared to reference standards, the mean impact on chemical research is for the most part far above average not only for accepted Communications but also for rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications. However, average and below-average scientific impact is to be expected significantly less frequently for accepted Communications than for rejected Communications. All in all, the results of this study confirm that peer review at AC-IE is able to select the best scientific work with the highest impact on chemical research.
- Content
- Vgl. auch: Erratum Re: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Agewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(2008) no.12, S.2037-2038.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.11, S.1841-1852
-
Proceedings of the Workshop on 'Bibliometric Standards' (1996)
0.05
0.046944313 = product of:
0.18777725 = sum of:
0.18777725 = weight(_text_:standards in 5072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18777725 = score(doc=5072,freq=4.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.83567894 = fieldWeight in 5072, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5072)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Issue devoted to the proceedings of the Workshop 'Bibliometric Standards' held in River Forest, Illinois, 11 June 1995
-
Katz, J.S.: Bibliometric standards : personal experience and lessons learned (1996)
0.04
0.044259522 = product of:
0.17703809 = sum of:
0.17703809 = weight(_text_:standards in 5058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17703809 = score(doc=5058,freq=8.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.78788567 = fieldWeight in 5058, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5058)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Bibliometric standards are essential for comparative research. Asserts, however, that these standards can not be set by committee but must evolve through an ongoing debate. Suggests that the scientometric community needs a refereed forum more dedicated to methodological issues than policy matters in which the standards debate can prodeed in a focused and professional manner
-
Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986)
0.04
0.04105504 = product of:
0.08211008 = sum of:
0.027465092 = weight(_text_:information in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027465092 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
0.054644987 = product of:
0.109289974 = sum of:
0.109289974 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.109289974 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, 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=5509)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.04
0.04105504 = product of:
0.08211008 = sum of:
0.027465092 = weight(_text_:information in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027465092 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
0.054644987 = product of:
0.109289974 = sum of:
0.109289974 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.109289974 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = 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
- Source
- Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx
-
Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987)
0.04
0.04105504 = product of:
0.08211008 = sum of:
0.027465092 = weight(_text_:information in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027465092 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
0.054644987 = product of:
0.109289974 = sum of:
0.109289974 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.109289974 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, 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=1080)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
-
Jonkers, K.; Derrick, G.E.: ¬The bibliometric bandwagon : characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature (2012)
0.04
0.040477425 = product of:
0.08095485 = sum of:
0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014565565 = score(doc=261,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 261, 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=261)
0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.066389285 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The controversial use of bibliometrics in scientific decision making has necessitated the need for researchers to remain informed and engaged about bibliometrics. Glänzel and Schoepflin () first raised the issue of bibliometric standards in bibliometric research and this concern has been echoed by several additional bibliometric researchers over time (Braun, ; Glänzel, ; Abbott, Cyranoski, Jones, Maher, Schiermeier, & Van Noorden, ; Lane, ; Nature, ; van Noorden, ; Wallin, ). We compare the characteristics of articles published within and outside the Library and Information Science (LIS) field, including the relative impact and the affiliation of the contributing authors. We find that although the visibility of bibliometric articles within LIS is higher, it is not significant. However, a statistically significant growth in the number of articles written by authors without a bibliometric affiliation was found. This article provides an independent empirical investigation of publication trends potentially underlying Glänzel and Schoepflin's () concerns regarding the misuse of bibliometric results, and the inaccurate dissemination of concepts, results, and methods outside of the bibliometric field.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.829-836
-
Haley, M.R.: ¬A simple paradigm for augmenting the Euclidean index to reflect journal impact and visibility (2020)
0.04
0.040477425 = product of:
0.08095485 = sum of:
0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 5676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014565565 = score(doc=5676,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5676, 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=5676)
0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 5676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.066389285 = score(doc=5676,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 5676, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5676)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This article offers an adjustment to the recently developed Euclidean Index (Perry and Reny, 2016). The proposed companion metric reflects the impact of the journal in which an article appears; the rationale for incorporating this information is to reflect higher costs of production and higher review standards, and to mitigate the heavily truncated citation counts that often arise in promotion, renewal, and tenure deliberations. Additionally, focusing jointly on citations and journal impact diversifies the assessment process, and can thereby help avoid misjudging scholars with modest citation counts in high-level journals. A combination of both metrics is also proposed, which nests each as a special case. The approach is demonstrated using a generic journal ranking metric, but can be adapted to most any stated or revealed preference measure of journal impact.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.3, S.370-373
-
Wainer, J; Przibisczki de Oliveira, H.; Anido, R.: Patterns of bibliographic references in the ACM published papers (2011)
0.04
0.038344346 = product of:
0.07668869 = sum of:
0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 4240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01029941 = score(doc=4240,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4240, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4240)
0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 4240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.066389285 = score(doc=4240,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 4240, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4240)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This paper analyzes the bibliographic references made by all papers published by ACM in 2006. Both an automatic classification of all references and a human classification of a random sample of them resulted that around 40% of the references are to conference proceedings papers, around 30% are to journal papers, and around 8% are to books. Among the other types of documents, standards and RFC correspond to 3% of the references, technical and other reports correspond to 4%, and other Web references to 3%. Among the documents cited at least 10 times by the 2006 ACM papers, 41% are conferences papers, 37% are books, and 16% are journal papers.
- Source
- Information processing and management. 47(2011) no.1, S.135-142
-
Rao, I.K.R.: Methodological and conceptual questions of bibliometric standards (1996)
0.04
0.038329873 = product of:
0.1533195 = sum of:
0.1533195 = weight(_text_:standards in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1533195 = score(doc=5071,freq=6.0), product of:
0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.68232906 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Bibliometric studies are mostly empirical in nature and they are mostly centred around the presentation of facts and data. The facts are gathered either through surveys or from published bibliographies, indexes and databases. Based on these facts, empirical models and principles are being developed. Normative principles and standards have to evolve from the logical analysis of the empirical models. The stage is set to integrate empirical models of bibliometrics into standards. Future bibliometric studies have to address this issue and reach the stage of normative principles
-
Ohly, P.: Dimensions of globality : a bibliometric analysis (2016)
0.04
0.038189515 = product of:
0.15275806 = sum of:
0.15275806 = sum of:
0.098113075 = weight(_text_:organization in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098113075 = score(doc=4942,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.5458315 = fieldWeight in 4942, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4942)
0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054644987 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4942, 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=4942)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 20. 1.2019 11:22:31
- Series
- Advances in knowledge organization; vol.15
- Source
- Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei
-
Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994)
0.04
0.03592316 = product of:
0.07184632 = sum of:
0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024031956 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
0.047814365 = product of:
0.09562873 = sum of:
0.09562873 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09562873 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990)
0.04
0.03592316 = product of:
0.07184632 = sum of:
0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024031956 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.047814365 = product of:
0.09562873 = sum of:
0.09562873 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09562873 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:29
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.5, S.368-375
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990)
0.04
0.03592316 = product of:
0.07184632 = sum of:
0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024031956 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
0.047814365 = product of:
0.09562873 = sum of:
0.09562873 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09562873 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:55
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.5, S.376-386
-
Riechert, M.; Schmitz, J.: Qualitätssicherung von Forschungsinformationen durch visuelle Repräsentation : das Fallbeispiel des "Informationssystems Promotionsnoten" (2017)
0.04
0.035188597 = product of:
0.07037719 = sum of:
0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 3724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020812286 = score(doc=3724,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 3724, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3724)
0.049564905 = product of:
0.09912981 = sum of:
0.09912981 = weight(_text_:organization in 3724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09912981 = score(doc=3724,freq=8.0), product of:
0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.050415643 = queryNorm
0.5514879 = fieldWeight in 3724, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3724)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
