Search (72 results, page 1 of 4)

0.0564964 = product of:
  0.1129928 = sum of:
    0.1129928 = sum of:
      0.07054652 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07054652 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.34915322 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
      0.042446278 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042446278 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I studied the factors (citations, self-citations, and number of articles) that influenced large changes in only 1 year in the impact factors (IFs) of journals. A set of 360 instances of journals with large increases or decreases in their IFs from a given year to the following was selected from journals in the Journal Citation Reports from 1998 to 2007 (40 journals each year). The main factor influencing large changes was the change in the number of citations. About 54% of the increases and 42% of the decreases in the journal IFs were associated with changes in the journal self-citations.

Date

22. 1.2011 12:53:00

0.04842549 = product of:
  0.09685098 = sum of:
    0.09685098 = sum of:
      0.06046845 = weight(_text_:2007 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06046845 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.2992742 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
      0.036382522 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036382522 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.

0.040354572 = product of:
  0.080709144 = sum of:
    0.080709144 = sum of:
      0.050390374 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050390374 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.24939516 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
      0.030318772 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030318772 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044755515 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, 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=4959)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study uses three bibliometric methods: direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis, to investigate interdisciplinary changes in library and information science (LIS) from 1978 to 2007. The results reveal that LIS researchers most frequently cite publications in their own discipline. In addition, half of all co-authors of LIS articles are affiliated with LIS-related institutes. The results confirm that the degree of interdisciplinarity within LIS has increased, particularly co-authorship. However, the study found sources of direct citations in LIS articles are widely distributed across 30 disciplines, but co-authors of LIS articles are distributed across only 25 disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity was found ranging from 0.61 to 0.82 with citation to references in all articles being the highest and that of co-authorship being the lowest. Percentages of contribution attributable to LIS show a decreasing tendency based on the results of direct citation and co-authorship analysis, but an increasing tendency based on those of bibliographic coupling analysis. Such differences indicate each of the three bibliometric methods has its strength and provides insights respectively for viewing various aspects of interdisciplinarity, suggesting the use of no single bibliometric method can reveal all aspects of interdisciplinarity due to its multifaceted nature.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33

0.025195187 = product of:
  0.050390374 = sum of:
    0.050390374 = product of:
      0.10078075 = sum of:
        0.10078075 = weight(_text_:2007 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10078075 = score(doc=3340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.49879032 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I studied the distribution of articles and citations in journals between 1998 and 2007 according to an empirical function with two exponents. These variables showed good fit to a beta function with two exponents.

0.021378826 = product of:
  0.042757653 = sum of:
    0.042757653 = product of:
      0.085515305 = sum of:
        0.085515305 = weight(_text_:2007 in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085515305 = score(doc=3593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.42323765 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index has recently been proposed for research evaluation. In the present work an earlier dataset by Cronin and Meho (2007) is reanalyzed, with the aim of exemplifying the salient features of the DCI index. We apply the index on, and compare our results to, the outcomes of the Cronin-Meho (2007) study. Both authors and their top publications are used as units of analysis, which suggests that, by adjusting the parameters of evaluation according to the needs of research evaluation, the DCI index delivers data on an author's (or publication's) lifetime impact or current impact at the time of evaluation on an author's (or publication's) capability of inviting citations from highly cited later publications as an indication of impact, and on the relative impact across a set of authors (or publications) over their lifetime or currently.

0.021378826 = product of:
  0.042757653 = sum of:
    0.042757653 = product of:
      0.085515305 = sum of:
        0.085515305 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085515305 = score(doc=4441,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.42323765 = fieldWeight in 4441, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article employs citation analysis on a micro level-the level of the cited document; in this case, Walter Benjamin's Illuminations (1968/2007). The study shows how this frequently cited publication-more than 4,000 citations in Web of Science-has been received. The growth of citations and interdisciplinary citing is studied, and a novel approach-page citation analysis-is applied to study how different parts of Illuminations have been cited. The article demonstrates how bibliometric methods can be used together with qualitative accounts to map the impact and dissemination of a particular publication. Furthermore, it shows how bibliometric methods can be utilized to study intellectual structures in the humanities, and highlights the influence of the humanities on the social sciences and sciences.

Content

"One can go even further and remember that interruption is one of the fundamental devices of all structuring. It goes far beyond the sphere of art. To give only one example, it is the basis of quotation. To quote a text involves the interruption of its context." [Walter Benjamin (1968/2007, p. 151)]

0.021378826 = product of:
  0.042757653 = sum of:
    0.042757653 = product of:
      0.085515305 = sum of:
        0.085515305 = weight(_text_:2007 in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085515305 = score(doc=737,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.42323765 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study investigates a range of metrics available when a nanoscience and nanotechnology article is published to see which metrics correlate more with the number of citations to the article. It also introduces the degree of internationality of journals and references as new metrics for this purpose. The journal impact factor; the impact of references; the internationality of authors, journals, and references; and the number of authors, institutions, and references were all calculated for papers published in nanoscience and nanotechnology journals in the Web of Science from 2007 to 2009. Using a zero-inflated negative binomial regression model on the data set, the impact factor of the publishing journal and the citation impact of the cited references were found to be the most effective determinants of citation counts in all four time periods. In the entire 2007 to 2009 period, apart from journal internationality and author numbers and internationality, all other predictor variables had significant effects on citation counts.

0.021378826 = product of:
  0.042757653 = sum of:
    0.042757653 = product of:
      0.085515305 = sum of:
        0.085515305 = weight(_text_:2007 in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085515305 = score(doc=1202,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.42323765 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bioinformatics is a fast-growing field based on the optimal use of "big data" gathered in genomic, proteomics, and functional genomics research. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive and in-depth bibliometric analysis of the field of bioinformatics by extracting citation data from PubMed Central full-text. Citation data for the period 2000 to 2011, comprising 20,869 papers with 546,245 citations, was used to evaluate the productivity and influence of this emerging field. Four measures were used to identify productivity; most productive authors, most productive countries, most productive organizations, and most popular subject terms. Research impact was analyzed based on the measures of most cited papers, most cited authors, emerging stars, and leading organizations. Results show the overall trends between the periods 2000 to 2003 and 2004 to 2007 were dissimilar, while trends between the periods 2004 to 2007 and 2008 to 2011 were similar. In addition, the field of bioinformatics has undergone a significant shift, co-evolving with other biomedical disciplines.

0.02015615 = product of:
  0.0403123 = sum of:
    0.0403123 = product of:
      0.0806246 = sum of:
        0.0806246 = weight(_text_:2007 in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0806246 = score(doc=3705,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.39903226 = fieldWeight in 3705, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3705)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors propose using the technique of weighted citation to measure an article's prestige. The technique allocates a different weight to each reference by taking into account the impact of citing journals and citation time intervals. Weightedcitation captures prestige, whereas citation counts capture popularity. They compare the value variances for popularity and prestige for articles published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology from 1998 to 2007, and find that the majority have comparable status.

0.02015615 = product of:
  0.0403123 = sum of:
    0.0403123 = product of:
      0.0806246 = sum of:
        0.0806246 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0806246 = score(doc=4487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.39903226 = fieldWeight in 4487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A bibliometric method for analyzing and visualizing national research profiles is adapted to describe national preferences for publishing particular document types. Similarities in national profiles and national peculiarities are discussed based on the publication output of the 26 most active countries indexed in the Web of Science annual volume 2007.

0.018191261 = product of:
  0.036382522 = sum of:
    0.036382522 = product of:
      0.072765045 = sum of:
        0.072765045 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072765045 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15672618 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18. 3.2014 19:13:22

0.017815689 = product of:
  0.035631377 = sum of:
    0.035631377 = product of:
      0.071262754 = sum of:
        0.071262754 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071262754 = score(doc=4365,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.35269803 = fieldWeight in 4365, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Secondary journals such as Evidence-Based Medicine, ACP Journal Club, and Evidence-Based Nursing summarize, from over 150 clinical journals, articles that pass criteria for scientific merit, clinical relevance, and interest to practicing clinicians. We performed a retrospective cohort study to validate the selection process used to produce the secondary journals by calculating the 2007 impact factors for these journals using articles that were abstracted and originally published in 2005-2006. The 'impact factors' for the secondary journals were calculated using 2007 citations to included articles. These were compared to the published impact factors and mean citations of the source journals. 2005/2006 articles in the secondary journals were originally published in 82 journals with ISI impact factors (median 4.1, range 0.85-52.9). The calculated impact factors for the secondary journals were 39.5 for ACP Journal Club, 30.2 for Evidence-Based Medicine, and 9.3 for Evidence-Based Nursing. Limitations include articles coming from only 150 journal titles and the inclusion of these articles may in fact stimulate citations. We conclude that evidence-based secondary journals include articles at the time of publication that go on to garner more citations on average than other articles in the source publications.

0.017815689 = product of:
  0.035631377 = sum of:
    0.035631377 = product of:
      0.071262754 = sum of:
        0.071262754 = weight(_text_:2007 in 1049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071262754 = score(doc=1049,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.35269803 = fieldWeight in 1049, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1049)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article analyzes the context of citations within the full text of research articles. It studies articles published in a single journal: the Journal of Informetrics (JOI), in the first year the journal was published, 2007. The analysis classified the citations into in- and out-disciplinary content and looked at their use within the articles' sections such as introduction, literature review, methodology, findings, discussion, and conclusions. In addition, it took into account the age of cited articles. A thematic analysis of these citations was performed in order to identify the evolution of topics within the articles sections and the journal's content. A matrix describing the relationships between the citations' use, and their in- and out-disciplinary focus within the articles' sections is presented. The findings show that an analysis of citations based on their in- and out-disciplinary orientation within the context of the articles' sections can be an indication of the manner by which cross-disciplinary science works, and reveals the connections between the issues, methods, analysis, and conclusions coming from different research disciplines.

0.017815689 = product of:
  0.035631377 = sum of:
    0.035631377 = product of:
      0.071262754 = sum of:
        0.071262754 = weight(_text_:2007 in 2940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071262754 = score(doc=2940,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.35269803 = fieldWeight in 2940, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We investigate the contributions of particular disciplines, countries, and academic departments to the literature of library and information science (LIS) using data for the articles published in 31 journals from 2007 to 2012. In particular, we examine the contributions of authors outside the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada; faculty in departments other than LIS; and practicing librarians. Worldwide, faculty in LIS departments account for 31% of the journal literature; librarians, 23%; computer science faculty, 10%; and management faculty, 10%. The top contributing nations are the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, China, Canada, and Taiwan. Within the United States and the United Kingdom, the current productivity of LIS departments is correlated with past productivity and with other measures of reputation and performance. More generally, the distribution of contributions is highly skewed. In the United States, five departments account for 27% of the articles contributed by LIS faculty; in the United Kingdom, four departments account for nearly two-thirds of the articles. This skewed distribution reinforces the possibility that high-status departments may gain a permanent advantage in the competition for students, faculty, journal space, and research funding. At the same time, concentrations of research-active faculty in particular departments may generate beneficial spillover effects.

0.017815689 = product of:
  0.035631377 = sum of:
    0.035631377 = product of:
      0.071262754 = sum of:
        0.071262754 = weight(_text_:2007 in 3863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071262754 = score(doc=3863,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.35269803 = fieldWeight in 3863, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3863)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization (KO) theoretical foundations are still being developed in a continuous process of epistemological, theoretical and methodological consolidation. The remarkable growth of scientific records has stimulated the analysis of this production and the creation of instruments to evaluate the behavior of science became indispensable. We propose the Domain Analysis of KO in North America through the citation analysis of North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO) proceedings (2007 - 2015). We present the citation, co-citation and bibliographic coupling analysis to visualize and recognize the researchers that influence the scholarly communication in this domain. The most prolific authors through NASKO conferences are Smiraglia, Tennis, Green, Dousa, Grant Campbell, Pimentel, Beak, La Barre, Kipp and Fox. Regarding their theoretical references, Hjørland, Olson, Smiraglia, and Ranganathan are the authors who most inspired the event's studies. The co-citation network shows the highest frequency is between Olson and Mai, followed by Hjørland and Mai and Beghtol and Mai, consolidating Mai and Hjørland as the central authors of the theoretical references in NASKO. The strongest theoretical proximity in author bibliographic coupling network occurs between Fox and Tennis, Dousa and Tennis, Tennis and Smiraglia, Dousa and Beak, and Pimentel and Tennis, highlighting Tennis as central author, that interconnects the others in relation to KO theoretical references in NASKO. The North American chapter has demonstrated a strong scientific production as well as a high level of concern with theoretical and epistemological questions, gathering researchers from different countries, universities and knowledge areas.

0.015117113 = product of:
  0.030234225 = sum of:
    0.030234225 = product of:
      0.06046845 = sum of:
        0.06046845 = weight(_text_:2007 in 1036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06046845 = score(doc=1036,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.2992742 = fieldWeight in 1036, 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=1036)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Historically, co-citation models have been based only on bibliographic information. Full-text analysis offers the opportunity to significantly improve the quality of the signals upon which these co-citation models are based. In this work we study the effect of reference proximity on the accuracy of co-citation clusters. Using a corpus of 270,521 full text documents from 2007, we compare the results of traditional co-citation clustering using only the bibliographic information to results from co-citation clustering where proximity between reference pairs is factored into the pairwise relationships. We find that accounting for reference proximity from full text can increase the textual coherence (a measure of accuracy) of a co-citation cluster solution by up to 30% over the traditional approach based on bibliographic information.

0.0125975935 = product of:
  0.025195187 = sum of:
    0.025195187 = product of:
      0.050390374 = sum of:
        0.050390374 = weight(_text_:2007 in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050390374 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.24939516 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using the Scopus dataset (1996-2007) a grand matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations was constructed. This matrix can be compared in terms of the network structures with the matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI). Because the Scopus database contains a larger number of journals and covers the humanities, one would expect richer maps. However, the matrix is in this case sparser than in the case of the ISI data. This is because of (a) the larger number of journals covered by Scopus and (b) the historical record of citations older than 10 years contained in the ISI database. When the data is highly structured, as in the case of large journals, the maps are comparable, although one may have to vary a threshold (because of the differences in densities). In the case of interdisciplinary journals and journals in the social sciences and humanities, the new database does not add a lot to what is possible with the ISI databases.

0.0125975935 = product of:
  0.025195187 = sum of:
    0.025195187 = product of:
      0.050390374 = sum of:
        0.050390374 = weight(_text_:2007 in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050390374 = score(doc=3441,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.24939516 = fieldWeight in 3441, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The objective of this article is to introduce a socially oriented approach to the analysis and representation of the social and intellectual structure of scientific fields. A sociological perspective is introduced as the theoretical basis to analyze scientific fields, and the social network framework is adopted to develop a multidisciplinary approach to analyze the organization of science. This approach is then applied to study the Spanish Library and Information Science community from 1999 to 2007. The underlying notion is that science is organized work, in which the pursuit of impact shapes the specific scientific organization. This generates mutual dependence and control among researchers, which may restrict access when formally communicating with other scientific communities. On the other hand, scholarly journals facilitate the coordination of new knowledge and serve as platforms for interaction among scientists. Consequently, the interaction of well-defined groups of homogenous researchers, concentrated around particular sets of journals, leads to the formation of cohesive (sub)groups tied together by the degree of similarity of the researchers' competence. An empirical test suggests that this consideration can accurately reveal a segment of the structure of the scientific field. This study therefore introduces a new approach for mapping the structure of scientific fields that differs from most existing methods, which are based on (co)citation.

0.0125975935 = product of:
  0.025195187 = sum of:
    0.025195187 = product of:
      0.050390374 = sum of:
        0.050390374 = weight(_text_:2007 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050390374 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.24939516 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study comprises a suite of analyses of words in article titles in order to reveal the cognitive structure of Library and Information Science (LIS). The use of title words to elucidate the cognitive structure of LIS has been relatively neglected. The present study addresses this gap by performing (a) co-word analysis and hierarchical clustering, (b) multidimensional scaling, and (c) determination of trends in usage of terms. The study is based on 10,344 articles published between 1988 and 2007 in 16 LIS journals. Methodologically, novel aspects of this study are: (a) its large scale, (b) removal of non-specific title words based on the "word concentration" measure (c) identification of the most frequent terms that include both single words and phrases, and (d) presentation of the relative frequencies of terms using "heatmaps". Conceptually, our analysis reveals that LIS consists of three main branches: the traditionally recognized library-related and information-related branches, plus an equally distinct bibliometrics/scientometrics branch. The three branches focus on: libraries, information, and science, respectively. In addition, our study identifies substructures within each branch. We also tentatively identify "information seeking behavior" as a branch that is establishing itself separate from the three main branches. Furthermore, we find that cognitive concepts in LIS evolve continuously, with no stasis since 1992. The most rapid development occurred between 1998 and 2001, influenced by the increased focus on the Internet. The change in the cognitive landscape is found to be driven by the emergence of new information technologies, and the retirement of old ones.

0.0125975935 = product of:
  0.025195187 = sum of:
    0.025195187 = product of:
      0.050390374 = sum of:
        0.050390374 = weight(_text_:2007 in 2037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050390374 = score(doc=2037,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20205033 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044755515 = queryNorm
            0.24939516 = fieldWeight in 2037, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.514535 = idf(docFreq=1315, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2037)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is a publisher ranking study based on a citation data grant from Elsevier, specifically, book titles cited in Scopus history journals (2007-2011) and matching metadata from WorldCat® (i.e., OCLC numbers, ISBN codes, publisher records, and library holding counts). Using both resources, we have created a unique relational database designed to compare citation counts to books with international library holdings or libcitations for scholarly book publishers. First, we construct a ranking of the top 500 publishers and explore descriptive statistics at the level of publisher type (university, commercial, other) and country of origin. We then identify the top 50 university presses and commercial houses based on total citations and mean citations per book (CPB). In a third analysis, we present a map of directed citation links between journals and book publishers. American and British presses/publishing houses tend to dominate the work of library collection managers and citing scholars; however, a number of specialist publishers from Europe are included. Distinct clusters from the directed citation map indicate a certain degree of regionalism and subject specialization, where some journals produced in languages other than English tend to cite books published by the same parent press. Bibliometric rankings convey only a small part of how the actual structure of the publishing field has evolved; hence, challenges lie ahead for developers of new citation indices for books and bibliometricians interested in measuring book and publisher impacts.