Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.027885964 = product of:
  0.05577193 = sum of:
    0.05577193 = product of:
      0.11154386 = sum of:
        0.11154386 = weight(_text_:2007 in 480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11154386 = score(doc=480,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.55205977 = fieldWeight in 480, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=480)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.13, S.1948-1959

Year

2007

0.019918546 = product of:
  0.039837092 = sum of:
    0.039837092 = product of:
      0.079674184 = sum of:
        0.079674184 = weight(_text_:2007 in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079674184 = score(doc=620,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.39432842 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.13, S.2105-2125

Year

2007

0.015117113 = product of:
  0.030234225 = sum of:
    0.030234225 = product of:
      0.06046845 = sum of:
        0.06046845 = weight(_text_:2007 in 3298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06046845 = score(doc=3298,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.2992742 = fieldWeight in 3298, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study uses citations, from 1996 to 2007, to the work of 80 randomly selected full-time, information studies (IS) faculty members from North America to examine differences between Scopus and Web of Science in assessing the scholarly impact of the field focusing on the most frequently citing journals, conference proceedings, research domains and institutions, as well as all citing countries. Results show that when assessment is limited to smaller citing entities (e.g., journals, conference proceedings, institutions), the two databases produce considerably different results, whereas when assessment is limited to larger citing entities (e.g., research domains, countries), the two databases produce very similar pictures of scholarly impact. In the former case, the use of Scopus (for journals and institutions) and both Scopus and Web of Science (for conference proceedings) is necessary to more accurately assess or visualize the scholarly impact of IS, whereas in the latter case, assessing or visualizing the scholarly impact of IS is independent of the database used.

0.007579693 = product of:
  0.015159386 = sum of:
    0.015159386 = product of:
      0.030318772 = sum of:
        0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030318772 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.