Search (58 results, page 1 of 3)

0.0042066295 = product of:
  0.016826518 = sum of:
    0.016826518 = weight(_text_:information in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016826518 = score(doc=2351,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Bezug: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2714. Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23554/abstract.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.10, S.2166

0.004164351 = product of:
  0.016657405 = sum of:
    0.016657405 = weight(_text_:information in 1247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016657405 = score(doc=1247,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1247, 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=1247)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.1089-1090

0.004164351 = product of:
  0.016657405 = sum of:
    0.016657405 = weight(_text_:information in 1600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016657405 = score(doc=1600,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1600, 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=1600)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 45(2011) no.1, S.197-245

0.0035694437 = product of:
  0.014277775 = sum of:
    0.014277775 = weight(_text_:information in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014277775 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 752, 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=752)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.6, S.1306-1308

0.0035694437 = product of:
  0.014277775 = sum of:
    0.014277775 = weight(_text_:information in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014277775 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1188, 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=1188)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.428-429

0.0035694437 = product of:
  0.014277775 = sum of:
    0.014277775 = weight(_text_:information in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014277775 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1206, 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=1206)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.3, S.647-648

0.0035694437 = product of:
  0.014277775 = sum of:
    0.014277775 = weight(_text_:information in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014277775 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1239, 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=1239)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.866-867

0.0035694437 = product of:
  0.014277775 = sum of:
    0.014277775 = weight(_text_:information in 1509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014277775 = score(doc=1509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1509, 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=1509)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.10, S.2160-2161

0.0035694437 = product of:
  0.014277775 = sum of:
    0.014277775 = weight(_text_:information in 2349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014277775 = score(doc=2349,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2349, 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=2349)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2715-2716

0.0035694437 = product of:
  0.014277775 = sum of:
    0.014277775 = weight(_text_:information in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014277775 = score(doc=2779,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.707-714

0.0035694437 = product of:
  0.014277775 = sum of:
    0.014277775 = weight(_text_:information in 2858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014277775 = score(doc=2858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2858, 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=2858)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.1016-1017

0.0035694437 = product of:
  0.014277775 = sum of:
    0.014277775 = weight(_text_:information in 3020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014277775 = score(doc=3020,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3020, 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=3020)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.7, S.1779

0.0035694437 = product of:
  0.014277775 = sum of:
    0.014277775 = weight(_text_:information in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014277775 = score(doc=3023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3023, 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=3023)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.7, S.1777-1778

0.0033256328 = product of:
  0.013302531 = sum of:
    0.013302531 = weight(_text_:information in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013302531 = score(doc=4919,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In bibliometrics, the association of "impact" with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves therefore should be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology differ by a factor of 2 in terms of their respective impact factors (IF), but the journal with the lower IF has the higher impact. Using percentile ranks (e.g., top-1%, top-10%, etc.), an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be based on integration of the citation curves, but after normalization of the citation curves to the same scale. The results across document sets can be compared as percentages of the total impact of a reference set. Total number of citations, however, should not be used instead because the shape of the citation curves is then not appreciated. I3 can be applied to any document set and any citation window. The results of the integration (summation) are fully decomposable in terms of journals or institutional units such as nations, universities, and so on because percentile ranks are determined at the paper level. In this study, we first compare I3 with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories ("Information Science & Library Science" and "Multidisciplinary Sciences"). The library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations. Policy implications of this possible paradigm shift in citation impact analysis are specified.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2133-2146

0.003091229 = product of:
  0.012364916 = sum of:
    0.012364916 = weight(_text_:information in 288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012364916 = score(doc=288,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 288, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=288)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A technique is developed using patent information available online (at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) for the generation of Google Maps. The overlays indicate both the quantity and the quality of patents at the city level. This information is relevant for research questions in technology analysis, innovation studies, and evolutionary economics, as well as economic geography. The resulting maps can also be relevant for technological innovation policies and research and development management, because the U.S. market can be considered the leading market for patenting and patent competition. In addition to the maps, the routines provide quantitative data about the patents for statistical analysis. The cities on the map are colored according to the results of significance tests. The overlays are explored for the Netherlands as a "national system of innovations" and further elaborated in two cases of emerging technologies: ribonucleic acid interference (RNAi) and nanotechnology.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1442-1458

0.0029745363 = product of:
  0.011898145 = sum of:
    0.011898145 = weight(_text_:information in 8911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011898145 = score(doc=8911,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 8911, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8911)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.8, S.1738-1739

0.0029745363 = product of:
  0.011898145 = sum of:
    0.011898145 = weight(_text_:information in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011898145 = score(doc=3231,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3095-3100

0.0029446408 = product of:
  0.011778563 = sum of:
    0.011778563 = weight(_text_:information in 1759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011778563 = score(doc=1759,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1759, 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=1759)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The authors exploit the analogy between journal peer review and information retrieval in order to quantify some imperfections of journal peer review. Design/methodology/approach - The authors define fallout rate and missing rate in order to describe quantitatively the weak papers that were accepted and the strong papers that were missed, respectively. To assess the quality of manuscripts the authors use bibliometric measures. Findings - Fallout rate and missing rate are put in relation with the hitting rate and success rate. Conclusions are drawn on what fraction of weak papers will be accepted in order to have a certain fraction of strong accepted papers. Originality/value - The paper illustrates that these curves are new in peer review research when interpreted in the information retrieval terminology.

0.0025239778 = product of:
  0.010095911 = sum of:
    0.010095911 = weight(_text_:information in 606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010095911 = score(doc=606,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 606, 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=606)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Advances in information science

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.217-233

0.0025239778 = product of:
  0.010095911 = sum of:
    0.010095911 = weight(_text_:information in 3230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010095911 = score(doc=3230,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3230, 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=3230)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Visualization of scientific results using networks has become popular in scientometric research. We provide base maps for Mendeley reader count data using the publication year 2012 from the Web of Science data. Example networks are shown and explained. The reader can use our base maps to visualize other results with the VOSViewer. The proposed overlay maps are able to show the impact of publications in terms of readership data. The advantage of using our base maps is that it is not necessary for the user to produce a network based on all data (e.g., from 1 year), but can collect the Mendeley data for a single institution (or journals, topics) and can match them with our already produced information. Generation of such large-scale networks is still a demanding task despite the available computer power and digital data availability. Therefore, it is very useful to have base maps and create the network with the overlay technique.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3064-3072