Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.004371658 = product of:
  0.017486632 = sum of:
    0.017486632 = weight(_text_:information in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017486632 = score(doc=1825,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions

Source

Journal of information science. 21(1995) no.2, S.75-85

0.0042066295 = product of:
  0.016826518 = sum of:
    0.016826518 = weight(_text_:information in 4853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016826518 = score(doc=4853,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 4853, 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=4853)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The author describes an exploratory analysis of the influence of place and proximity on collaboration. Bibliometric data and biographical information are combined to reveal the extent to which co-authorship relationships are a function of physical collocation.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.6, S.1002-1006

0.004164351 = product of:
  0.016657405 = sum of:
    0.016657405 = weight(_text_:information in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016657405 = score(doc=3890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 3890, 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=3890)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of information science. 27(2001) no.1, S.1-7

0.004121639 = product of:
  0.016486555 = sum of:
    0.016486555 = weight(_text_:information in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016486555 = score(doc=196,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The authors apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. It is shown how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholar's research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.9, S.1275-1278

0.004121639 = product of:
  0.016486555 = sum of:
    0.016486555 = weight(_text_:information in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016486555 = score(doc=2361,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 2361, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2361)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The authors use a novel method - the Author Affiliation Index (AAI) - to determine whether faculty at the top-10 North American library and information science (LIS) programs have a disproportionate presence in the premier journals of the field. The study finds that LIS may be both too small and too interdisciplinary a domain for the AAI to provide reliable results.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.11, S.1861-1865

0.0033653039 = product of:
  0.013461215 = sum of:
    0.013461215 = weight(_text_:information in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013461215 = score(doc=1263,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The accrual of symbolic capital is an important aspect of academic life. Successful capital formation is commonly signified by the trappings of scholarly distinction or acknowledged status as a public intellectual. We consider and compare three potential indices of symbolic capital: citation counts, Web hits, and media mentions. Our Eindings, which are domain specific, suggest that public intellectuals are notable by their absence within the information studies community.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.14, S.1267-1270

0.0033653039 = product of:
  0.013461215 = sum of:
    0.013461215 = weight(_text_:information in 4488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013461215 = score(doc=4488,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 4488, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4488)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Data were gathered on acknowledgements in five leading information science journals for the years 1991-1999. The results were compared with data from two earlier studies of the same journals. Analysis of the aggregate data (1971-1999) confirms the general impression that acknowledgement has become an institutionalised element of the scholarly communication process, reflecting the growing cognitive and structural complexity of contemporary research.

0.0029745363 = product of:
  0.011898145 = sum of:
    0.011898145 = weight(_text_:information in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011898145 = score(doc=244,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 244, 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=244)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.5, S.997-1016

0.0029446408 = product of:
  0.011778563 = sum of:
    0.011778563 = weight(_text_:information in 4991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011778563 = score(doc=4991,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 4991, 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=4991)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We conducted a fine-grained prosopography of six distinguished information scientists to explore commonalities and differences in their approaches to scholarly production at different stages of their careers. Specifically, we gathered data on authors' genre preferences, rates and modes of scholarly production, and coauthorship patterns. We also explored the role played by gender and place in determining mentoring and collaboration practices across time. Our biobibliometric profiles of the sextet reveal the different shapes a scholar's career can take. We consider the implications of our findings for new entrants into the academic marketplace.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.3, S.450-468

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 7827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=7827,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 7827, 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=7827)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=6031,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 6031, 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=6031)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.9, S.770-773

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 1731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=1731,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1731, 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=1731)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.9, S.855-871

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=2094,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2094, 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=2094)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.2, S.160-168

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=1285,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1285, 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=1285)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1157-1169