-
Leydesdorff, L.: Theories of citation? (1999)
0.06
0.05575326 = product of:
0.16725978 = sum of:
0.16725978 = weight(_text_:specialist in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16725978 = score(doc=5130,freq=2.0), product of:
0.32440975 = queryWeight, product of:
6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.51558185 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Citations support the communication of specialist knowledge by allowing authors and readers to make specific selections in several contexts at the same time. In the interactions between the social network of authors and the network of their reflexive communications, a sub textual code of communication with a distributed character has emerged. Citation analysis reflects on citation practices. Reference lists are aggregated in scientometric analysis using one of the available contexts to reduce the complexity: geometrical representations of dynamic operations are reflected in corresponding theories of citation. The specific contexts represented in the modern citation can be deconstructed from the perspective of the cultural evolution of scientific communication
-
Neth, M.: Citation analysis and the Web (1998)
0.05
0.050983604 = product of:
0.15295081 = sum of:
0.15295081 = sum of:
0.10679861 = weight(_text_:librarians in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10679861 = score(doc=108,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.48993918 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
0.0461522 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0461522 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 108, 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=108)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Citation analysis has long been used by librarians as an important tool of collection development and the advent of Internet technology and especially the WWW adds a new facet to the role played by citation analysis. One of the reasons why librarians create WWW homepages is to provide users with further sources of interest or reference and to do this libraries include links from their own homepages to other information sources. Reports current research on the analysis of WWW pages as an introduction to an examination of the homepages of 25 art libraries to determine what sites are most often included. The types of linked sites are analyzed based on 3 criteria: location, focus and evidence that the link was evaluated before the connection was establisheds
- Date
- 10. 1.1999 16:22:37
-
Kreider, J.: ¬The correlation of local citation data with citation data from Journal Citation Reports (1999)
0.05
0.050558083 = product of:
0.15167424 = sum of:
0.15167424 = sum of:
0.112115204 = weight(_text_:librarians in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.112115204 = score(doc=102,freq=6.0), product of:
0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.5143291 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
0.03955903 = weight(_text_:22 in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03955903 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 102, 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=102)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- University librarians continue to face the difficult task of determining which journals remain crucial for their collections during these times of static financial resources and escalating journal costs. One evaluative tool, Journal Citation Reports (JCR), recently has become available on CD-ROM, making it simpler for librarians to use its citation data as input for ranking journals. But many librarians remain unconvinced that the global citation data from the JCR bears enough correspondence to their local situation to be useful. In this project, I explore the correlation between global citation data available from JCR with local citation data generated specifically for the University of British Columbia, for 20 subject fields in the sciences and social sciences. The significant correlations obtained in this study suggest that large research-oriented university libraries could consider substituting global citation data for local citation data when evaluating their journals, with certain cautions.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Leydesdorff, L.: Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations (2008)
0.05
0.04778851 = product of:
0.14336552 = sum of:
0.14336552 = weight(_text_:specialist in 1361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14336552 = score(doc=1361,freq=2.0), product of:
0.32440975 = queryWeight, product of:
6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.44192728 = fieldWeight in 1361, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1361)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Aging of publications, percentage of self-citations, and impact vary from journal to journal within fields of science. The assumption that citation and publication practices are homogenous within specialties and fields of science is invalid. Furthermore, the delineation of fields and among specialties is fuzzy. Institutional units of analysis and persons may move between fields or span different specialties. The match between the citation index and institutional profiles varies among institutional units and nations. The respective matches may heavily affect the representation of the units. Non-Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) journals are increasingly cornered into transdisciplinary Mode-2 functions with the exception of specialist journals publishing in languages other than English. An externally cited impact factor can be calculated for these journals. The citation impact of non-ISI journals will be demonstrated using Science and Public Policy as the example.
-
Zuccala, A.; Guns, R.; Cornacchia, R.; Bod, R.: Can we rank scholarly book publishers? : a bibliometric experiment with the field of history (2015)
0.04
0.039823756 = product of:
0.11947126 = sum of:
0.11947126 = weight(_text_:specialist in 2037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11947126 = score(doc=2037,freq=2.0), product of:
0.32440975 = queryWeight, product of:
6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.36827272 = fieldWeight in 2037, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2037)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
-
Garvey, W.D.: Communication: the essence of science : facilitating information exchange among librarians, scientists, engineers and students (1979)
0.03
0.025172673 = product of:
0.07551802 = sum of:
0.07551802 = product of:
0.15103604 = sum of:
0.15103604 = weight(_text_:librarians in 4318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15103604 = score(doc=4318,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.6928786 = fieldWeight in 4318, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4318)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
-
Torres-Salinas, D.; Gorraiz, J.; Robinson-Garcia, N.: ¬The insoluble problems of books : what does Altmetric.com have to offer? (2018)
0.02
0.02317528 = product of:
0.06952584 = sum of:
0.06952584 = sum of:
0.043153156 = weight(_text_:librarians in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043153156 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.19796532 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
0.026372686 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026372686 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Findings Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools. Practical implications This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com's functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Nkereuwem, E.E.: Accrediting knowledge : the ranking of library and information science journals (1997)
0.02
0.018685868 = product of:
0.056057602 = sum of:
0.056057602 = product of:
0.112115204 = sum of:
0.112115204 = weight(_text_:librarians in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.112115204 = score(doc=786,freq=6.0), product of:
0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.5143291 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Describes how a representative sample of librarians was surveyed to carry out a comparative evaluation of selected journals in library and information science. Respondents were asked to rate each journal on a scale from poor to outstanding (0-10), in terms of their visibility and the quality of articles they publish. Such evaluation should assist librarians in journal selection and in determining the quality of journals to which they send their research papers for publication. Reports the findings of the survey which discovered that some journals such as Library Waves, Assistant Librarian and Library Journal get low ratings because of low visibility and irregular publication. Others such as African Journal of Library Archives and Information Science and Journal of Information Science are rated highly because of familiarity and accessibility. Argues that the results of the study should help librarians determine the quality of journals and will subsequently enhance their utilization and subscription.
-
Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986)
0.02
0.01758179 = product of:
0.052745372 = sum of:
0.052745372 = product of:
0.105490744 = sum of:
0.105490744 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.105490744 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.02
0.01758179 = product of:
0.052745372 = sum of:
0.052745372 = product of:
0.105490744 = sum of:
0.105490744 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.105490744 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
-
Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987)
0.02
0.01758179 = product of:
0.052745372 = sum of:
0.052745372 = product of:
0.105490744 = sum of:
0.105490744 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.105490744 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
-
Radford, M.L.; Kitzie, V.; Mikitish, S.; Floegel, D.; Radford, G.P.; Connaway, L.S.: "People are reading your work," : scholarly identity and social networking sites (2020)
0.02
0.015571555 = product of:
0.046714664 = sum of:
0.046714664 = product of:
0.09342933 = sum of:
0.09342933 = weight(_text_:librarians in 5983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09342933 = score(doc=5983,freq=6.0), product of:
0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.42860752 = fieldWeight in 5983, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5983)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Scholarly identity refers to endeavors by scholars to promote their reputation, work and networks using online platforms such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Twitter. This exploratory research investigates benefits and drawbacks of scholarly identity efforts and avenues for potential library support. Design/methodology/approach Data from 30 semi-structured phone interviews with faculty, doctoral students and academic librarians were qualitatively analyzed using the constant comparisons method (Charmaz, 2014) and Goffman's (1959, 1967) theoretical concept of impression management. Findings Results reveal that use of online platforms enables academics to connect with others and disseminate their research. scholarly identity platforms have benefits, opportunities and offer possibilities for developing academic library support. They are also fraught with drawbacks/concerns, especially related to confusion, for-profit models and reputational risk. Research limitations/implications This exploratory study involves analysis of a small number of interviews (30) with self-selected social scientists from one discipline (communication) and librarians. It lacks gender, race/ethnicity and geographical diversity and focuses exclusively on individuals who use social networking sites for their scholarly identity practices. Social implications Results highlight benefits and risks of scholarly identity work and the potential for adopting practices that consider ethical dilemmas inherent in maintaining an online social media presence. They suggest continuing to develop library support that provides strategic guidance and information on legal responsibilities regarding copyright. Originality/value This research aims to understand the benefits and drawbacks of Scholarly Identity platforms and explore what support academic libraries might offer. It is among the first to investigate these topics comparing perspectives of faculty, doctoral students and librarians.
-
Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998)
0.02
0.015540253 = product of:
0.04662076 = sum of:
0.04662076 = product of:
0.09324152 = sum of:
0.09324152 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09324152 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:22:35
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.02
0.015540253 = product of:
0.04662076 = sum of:
0.04662076 = product of:
0.09324152 = sum of:
0.09324152 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09324152 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
-
Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994)
0.02
0.015384067 = product of:
0.0461522 = sum of:
0.0461522 = product of:
0.0923044 = sum of:
0.0923044 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0923044 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990)
0.02
0.015384067 = product of:
0.0461522 = sum of:
0.0461522 = product of:
0.0923044 = sum of:
0.0923044 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0923044 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:29
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990)
0.02
0.015384067 = product of:
0.0461522 = sum of:
0.0461522 = product of:
0.0923044 = sum of:
0.0923044 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0923044 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:55
-
Zhao, L.: How librarians used e-resources : an analysis of citations in CCQ (2006)
0.01
0.014384385 = product of:
0.043153156 = sum of:
0.043153156 = product of:
0.08630631 = sum of:
0.08630631 = weight(_text_:librarians in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08630631 = score(doc=5766,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.39593065 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
-
Phillips, R.L.: Book citations in PhD science dissertations : an examination of commercial book publishers' influence (2018)
0.01
0.014384385 = product of:
0.043153156 = sum of:
0.043153156 = product of:
0.08630631 = sum of:
0.08630631 = weight(_text_:librarians in 5517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08630631 = score(doc=5517,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.39593065 = fieldWeight in 5517, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5517)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Content
- Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Communities and Technologies: Realities, Challenges, and Opportunities for Librarians in Cuba'.
-
Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005)
0.01
0.013186343 = product of:
0.03955903 = sum of:
0.03955903 = product of:
0.07911806 = sum of:
0.07911806 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07911806 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04866305 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, 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=4890)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2007 17:02:22
