Search (281 results, page 1 of 15)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Costas, R.; Zahedi, Z.; Wouters, P.: ¬The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media : large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations (2015) 0.12 
    0.122440256 = product of:
  0.24488051 = sum of:
    0.046233665 = weight(_text_:communication in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046233665 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.23853138 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
    0.19864684 = sum of:
      0.16823748 = weight(_text_:blogs in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16823748 = score(doc=2598,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.31091204 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04488925 = queryNorm
          0.54110956 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.030409368 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030409368 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04488925 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Footnote
    Teil eines Special Issue: Social Media Metrics in Scholarly Communication: exploring tweets, blogs, likes and other altmetrics.
  2. Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015) 0.10 
    0.09882462 = product of:
  0.19764924 = sum of:
    0.07846113 = weight(_text_:communication in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07846113 = score(doc=3809,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.4048012 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.119188115 = sum of:
      0.10094249 = weight(_text_:blogs in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10094249 = score(doc=3809,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.31091204 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04488925 = queryNorm
          0.32466576 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.018245619 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018245619 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04488925 = 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(2/4)
    Abstract
    This year marks 350 years since the inaugural publications of both the Journal des Sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions, first published in 1665 and considered the birth of the peer-reviewed journal article. This form of scholarly communication has not only remained the dominant model for disseminating new knowledge (particularly for science and medicine), but has also increased substantially in volume. Derek de Solla Price - the "father of scientometrics" (Merton and Garfield, 1986, p. vii) - was the first to document the exponential increase in scientific journals and showed that "scientists have always felt themselves to be awash in a sea of the scientific literature" (Price, 1963, p. 15), as, for example, expressed at the 1948 Royal Society's Scientific Information Conference: Not for the first time in history, but more acutely than ever before, there was a fear that scientists would be overwhelmed, that they would be no longer able to control the vast amounts of potentially relevant material that were pouring forth from the world's presses, that science itself was under threat (Bawden and Robinson, 2008, p. 183).
    Furthermore, the rise of the web, and subsequently, the social web, has challenged the quasi-monopolistic status of the journal as the main form of scholarly communication and citation indices as the primary assessment mechanisms. Scientific communication is becoming more open, transparent, and diverse: publications are increasingly open access; manuscripts, presentations, code, and data are shared online; research ideas and results are discussed and criticized openly on blogs; and new peer review experiments, with open post publication assessment by anonymous or non-anonymous referees, are underway. The diversification of scholarly production and assessment, paired with the increasing speed of the communication process, leads to an increased information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2008), demanding new filters. The concept of altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics, was created out of an attempt to provide a filter (Priem et al., 2010) and to steer against the oversimplification of the measurement of scientific success solely on the basis of number of journal articles published and citations received, by considering a wider range of research outputs and metrics (Piwowar, 2013). Although the term altmetrics was introduced in a tweet in 2010 (Priem, 2010), the idea of capturing traces - "polymorphous mentioning" (Cronin et al., 1998, p. 1320) - of scholars and their documents on the web to measure "impact" of science in a broader manner than citations was introduced years before, largely in the context of webometrics (Almind and Ingwersen, 1997; Thelwall et al., 2005):
    There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Footnote
    Teil eines Special Issue: Social Media Metrics in Scholarly Communication: exploring tweets, blogs, likes and other altmetrics. Der Beitrag ist frei verfügbar.
  3. Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013) 0.07 
    0.07129603 = product of:
  0.28518412 = sum of:
    0.28518412 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28518412 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38057154 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
  4. Tijssen, R.J.W.; Wijk, E. van: ¬The global science base of information and communication technologies : bibliometric analysis of ICT research papers (1998) 0.06 
    0.06447117 = product of:
  0.12894234 = sum of:
    0.10461485 = weight(_text_:communication in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10461485 = score(doc=3691,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.5397349 = fieldWeight in 3691, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3691)
    0.024327492 = product of:
      0.048654985 = sum of:
        0.048654985 = weight(_text_:22 in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048654985 = score(doc=3691,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3691, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    International bibliographic databases and related biblimetric indicators together provide an analytical framework and appropriate measure to cover both the 'supply side' - research capabilities and outputs - and 'demand side' - collaboration, diffusion and citation impact - related to information and communication technologies (ICT) research. Presents results of such a bibliometric study describing macro level features of this ICT knowledge base
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:26:54
  5. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.06 
    0.059748493 = product of:
  0.23899397 = sum of:
    0.23899397 = sum of:
      0.19033898 = weight(_text_:blogs in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19033898 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31091204 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04488925 = queryNorm
          0.6121956 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.048654985 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048654985 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04488925 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Die Webometrie ist ein Teilbereich der Informationswissenschaft der zur Zeit auf die Analyse von Linkstrukturen konzentriert ist. Er ist stark von der Zitationsanalyse geprägt, wie der empirische Schwerpunkt auf der Wissenschaftsanalyse zeigt. In diesem Beitrag diskutieren wir die Nutzung linkbasierter Maße in einem breiten informetrischen Kontext und bewerten verschiedene Verfahren, auch im Hinblick auf ihr generelles Potentialfür die Sozialwissenschaften. Dabei wird auch ein allgemeiner Rahmenfür Linkanalysen mit den erforderlichen Arbeitsschritten vorgestellt. Abschließend werden vielversprechende zukünftige Anwendungsfelder der Webometrie benannt, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Analyse von Blogs.
    Date
    4.12.2006 12:12:22
  6. Zhang, Y.: ¬The impact of Internet-based electronic resources on formal scholarly communication in the area of library and information science : a citation analysis (1998) 0.06 
    0.056985 = product of:
  0.11397 = sum of:
    0.09246733 = weight(_text_:communication in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09246733 = score(doc=2808,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.47706276 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
    0.021502668 = product of:
      0.043005336 = sum of:
        0.043005336 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043005336 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Internet based electronic resources are growing dramatically but there have been no empirical studies evaluating the impact of e-sources, as a whole, on formal scholarly communication. reports results of an investigation into how much e-sources have been used in formal scholarly communication, using a case study in the area of Library and Information Science (LIS) during the period 1994 to 1996. 4 citation based indicators were used in the study of the impact measurement. Concludes that, compared with the impact of print sources, the impact of e-sources on formal scholarly communication in LIS is small, as measured by e-sources cited, and does not increase significantly by year even though there is observable growth of these impact across the years. It is found that periodical format is related to the rate of citing e-sources, articles are more likely to cite e-sources than are print priodical articles. However, once authors cite electronic resource, there is no significant difference in the number of references per article by periodical format or by year. Suggests that, at this stage, citing e-sources may depend on authors rather than the periodical format in which authors choose to publish
    Date
    30. 1.1999 17:22:22
  7. Botting, N.; Dipper, L.; Hilari, K.: ¬The effect of social media promotion on academic article uptake (2017) 0.05 
    0.0528573 = product of:
  0.1057146 = sum of:
    0.046233665 = weight(_text_:communication in 3522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046233665 = score(doc=3522,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.23853138 = fieldWeight in 3522, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3522)
    0.05948093 = product of:
      0.11896186 = sum of:
        0.11896186 = weight(_text_:blogs in 3522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11896186 = score(doc=3522,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31091204 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.38262224 = fieldWeight in 3522, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3522)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Important emerging measures of academic impact are article download and citation rates. Yet little is known about the influences on these and ways in which academics might manage this approach to dissemination. Three groups of papers by academics in a center for speech-language-science (available through a university repository) were compared. The first group of target papers were blogged, and the blogs were systematically tweeted. The second group of connected control papers were nonblogged papers that we carefully matched for author, topic, and year of publication. The third group were papers by different staff members on a variety of topics-Unrelated Control Papers. The results suggest an effect of social media on download rate, which was limited not just to Target Papers but also generalized to Connected Control Papers. Unrelated Control Papers showed no increase over the same amount of time (main effect of time, F(1,27)?=?55.6, p?<?.001); Significant Group×Time Interaction, F(2,27)?=?7.9, p?=?.002). The effect on citation rates was less clear but followed the same trend. The only predictor of the 2015 citation rate was downloads after blogging (r?=?0.450, p?=?.012). These preliminary results suggest that promotion of academic articles via social media may enhance download and citation rate and that this has implications for impact strategies.
    Series
    Brief communication
  8. Li, T.-C.: Reference sources in periodicals : research note (1995) 0.05 
    0.04915068 = product of:
  0.09830136 = sum of:
    0.073973864 = weight(_text_:communication in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073973864 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.3816502 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
    0.024327492 = product of:
      0.048654985 = sum of:
        0.048654985 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048654985 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Presents a list of 53 periodicals in 22 subject fields which regularly provide bibliographies of theses, research in progress and patents in their particular subject field. The fields of business, economics, history and literature have most periodical listings of dissertations and theses. Also lists 63 periodicals in 25 sub-disciplines which provide rankings or ratings. Rankings and ratings information predominates in the fields of business, sports and games, finance and banking, and library and information science
    Source
    Journal of information; communication; and library science. 2(1995) no.2, S.20-28
  9. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.05 
    0.04915068 = product of:
  0.09830136 = sum of:
    0.073973864 = weight(_text_:communication in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073973864 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.3816502 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
    0.024327492 = product of:
      0.048654985 = sum of:
        0.048654985 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048654985 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
    Series
    Brief communication
  10. Tonta, Y.: Scholarly communication and the use of networked information sources (1996) 0.05 
    0.048353374 = product of:
  0.09670675 = sum of:
    0.07846113 = weight(_text_:communication in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07846113 = score(doc=6389,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.4048012 = fieldWeight in 6389, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6389)
    0.018245619 = product of:
      0.036491238 = sum of:
        0.036491238 = weight(_text_:22 in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036491238 = score(doc=6389,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6389, 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=6389)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Examines the use of networked information sources in scholarly communication. Networked information sources are defined broadly to cover: documents and images stored on electronic network hosts; data files; newsgroups; listservs; online information services and electronic periodicals. Reports results of a survey to determine how heavily, if at all, networked information sources are cited in scholarly printed periodicals published in 1993 and 1994. 27 printed periodicals, representing a wide range of subjects and the most influential periodicals in their fields, were identified through the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index Journal Citation Reports. 97 articles were selected for further review and references, footnotes and bibliographies were checked for references to networked information sources. Only 2 articles were found to contain such references. Concludes that, although networked information sources facilitate scholars' work to a great extent during the research process, scholars have yet to incorporate such sources in the bibliographies of their published articles
    Source
    IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.3, S.240-245
  11. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.04 
    0.0406418 = product of:
  0.0812836 = sum of:
    0.0554804 = weight(_text_:communication in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0554804 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.28623766 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.025803205 = product of:
      0.05160641 = sum of:
        0.05160641 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05160641 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = 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(2/4)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
    Series
    Brief Communication
  12. Ding, Y.: Scholarly communication and bibliometrics : Part 1: The scholarly communication model: literature review (1998) 0.04 
    0.04003953 = product of:
  0.16015811 = sum of:
    0.16015811 = weight(_text_:communication in 3995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16015811 = score(doc=3995,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.8262969 = fieldWeight in 3995, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3995)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    State of the art review of models of the process of scholarly communication and the role that bibliometrics can play in studying this process
  13. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.04 
    0.036863007 = product of:
  0.07372601 = sum of:
    0.0554804 = weight(_text_:communication in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0554804 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.28623766 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
    0.018245619 = product of:
      0.036491238 = sum of:
        0.036491238 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036491238 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
    Series
    Brief communication
  14. Prathap, G.: ¬A three-class, three-dimensional bibliometric performance indicator (2014) 0.03 
    0.032692138 = product of:
  0.13076855 = sum of:
    0.13076855 = weight(_text_:communication in 1308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13076855 = score(doc=1308,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.6746686 = fieldWeight in 1308, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1308)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In this brief communication, we show how a simple 3D bibliometric performance evaluation based on the zynergy-index (Prathap, 2013) can be simplified by the recently introduced 3-class approach (Ye & Leydesdorff, in press).
    Series
    Brief communication
  15. Egghe, L.: Little science, big science and beyond (1994) 0.03 
    0.032363568 = product of:
  0.12945427 = sum of:
    0.12945427 = weight(_text_:communication in 6883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12945427 = score(doc=6883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.66788787 = fieldWeight in 6883, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6883)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Discusses the quality of bibliometrics, informetrics and scientometrics research, intradisciplinary communication and science policy
  16. Garvey, W.D.: Communication: the essence of science : facilitating information exchange among librarians, scientists, engineers and students (1979) 0.03 
    0.032363568 = product of:
  0.12945427 = sum of:
    0.12945427 = weight(_text_:communication in 4318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12945427 = score(doc=4318,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.66788787 = fieldWeight in 4318, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4318)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  17. Leydesdorff, L.; Probst, C.: ¬The delineation of an interdisciplinary specialty in terms of a journal set : the case of communication studies (2009) 0.03 
    0.031014485 = product of:
  0.12405794 = sum of:
    0.12405794 = weight(_text_:communication in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12405794 = score(doc=2952,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.64004683 = fieldWeight in 2952, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2952)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    A journal set in an interdisciplinary or newly developing area can be determined by including the journals classified under the most relevant ISI Subject Categories into a journal-journal citation matrix. Despite the fuzzy character of borders, factor analysis of the citation patterns enables us to delineate the specific set by discarding the noise. This methodology is illustrated using communication studies as a hybrid development between political science and social psychology. The development can be visualized using animations which support the claim that a specific journal set in communication studies is increasingly developing, notably in the being cited patterns. The resulting set of 28 journals in communication studies is smaller and more focused than the 45 journals classified by the ISI Subject Categories as Communication. The proposed method is tested for its robustness by extending the relevant environments to sets including many more journals.
  18. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.03 
    0.030719174 = product of:
  0.06143835 = sum of:
    0.046233665 = weight(_text_:communication in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046233665 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.23853138 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.015204684 = product of:
      0.030409368 = sum of:
        0.030409368 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030409368 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.
  19. Castanha, R.C.G.; Wolfram, D.: ¬The domain of knowledge organization : a bibliometric analysis of prolific authors and their intellectual space (2018) 0.03 
    0.030719174 = product of:
  0.06143835 = sum of:
    0.046233665 = weight(_text_:communication in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046233665 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.23853138 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
    0.015204684 = product of:
      0.030409368 = sum of:
        0.030409368 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030409368 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22
  20. Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023) 0.03 
    0.030719174 = product of:
  0.06143835 = sum of:
    0.046233665 = weight(_text_:communication in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046233665 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.23853138 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
    0.015204684 = product of:
      0.030409368 = sum of:
        0.030409368 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030409368 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1571945 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta-research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID-19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:02

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 268
  • d 9
  • ? 1
  • chi 1
  • f 1
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 268
  • m 11
  • el 3
  • s 2
  • b 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications