Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.017757209 = product of:
  0.035514418 = sum of:
    0.035514418 = product of:
      0.071028836 = sum of:
        0.071028836 = weight(_text_:1990 in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071028836 = score(doc=486,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20172533 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044758573 = queryNorm
            0.35210666 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers.

0.01506749 = product of:
  0.03013498 = sum of:
    0.03013498 = product of:
      0.06026996 = sum of:
        0.06026996 = weight(_text_:1990 in 1310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06026996 = score(doc=1310,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20172533 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044758573 = queryNorm
            0.2987724 = fieldWeight in 1310, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1310)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This work investigates recent claims that citation in a review article provokes a decline in a paper's later citation count; citations being given to the review article instead of the original paper. Using the Science Citation Index Expanded, we looked at the yearly percentages of lifetime citations of papers published in 1990 first cited in review articles in 1992 and 1995 in the field of biomedical research, and found that no significant change occurred after citation in a review article, regardless of the papers' citation activity or specialty. Additional comparison was done for papers from the field of clinical research, and this yielded no meaningful results to support the notion that review articles have any substantial effect on the citation count of the papers they review.

0.012864045 = product of:
  0.02572809 = sum of:
    0.02572809 = product of:
      0.05145618 = sum of:
        0.05145618 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05145618 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1567369 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044758573 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.012556243 = product of:
  0.025112486 = sum of:
    0.025112486 = product of:
      0.05022497 = sum of:
        0.05022497 = weight(_text_:1990 in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05022497 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20172533 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044758573 = queryNorm
            0.248977 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0045481264 = product of:
  0.009096253 = sum of:
    0.009096253 = product of:
      0.018192505 = sum of:
        0.018192505 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018192505 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1567369 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044758573 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22