-
Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006)
0.06
0.05998784 = product of:
0.11997568 = sum of:
0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031038022 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
0.088937655 = sum of:
0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05087085 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038066804 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.
- Date
- 26.12.2007 19:22:05
- Source
- Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.6, S.1451-1464
-
Meng, L.: ¬The creation of [the] Chinese Science Citation Database : status quo and future development (1997)
0.05
0.052796576 = product of:
0.10559315 = sum of:
0.07167925 = weight(_text_:data in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07167925 = score(doc=954,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.48408815 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
0.033913903 = product of:
0.067827806 = sum of:
0.067827806 = weight(_text_:processing in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.067827806 = score(doc=954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.35780904 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) is a significant document database on mainland China, which has been built up by the Documentation and Information Centre of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Briefly introduces the background to CSCD, and discusses in detail its development and application, source journals and citation data, data processing methods, subject scope, compilation regulations, stylistic rules and layout, and usage directions for both the printed and CD-ROM editions of CSCD which have been published from the data
-
Kurtz, M.J.; Eichhorn, G.; Accomazzi, A.; Grant, C.; Demleitner, M.; Henneken, E.; Murray, S.S.: ¬The effect of use and access on citations (2005)
0.05
0.046219878 = product of:
0.092439756 = sum of:
0.058525857 = weight(_text_:data in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058525857 = score(doc=1064,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.3952563 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
0.033913903 = product of:
0.067827806 = sum of:
0.067827806 = weight(_text_:processing in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.067827806 = score(doc=1064,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.35780904 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- It has been shown (Lawrence, S. (2001). Online or invisible? Nature, 411, 521) that journal articles which have been posted without charge on the internet are more heavily cited than those which have not been. Using data from the NASA Astrophysics Data System (ads.harvard.edu) and from the ArXiv e-print archive at Cornell University (arXiv.org) we examine the causes of this effect.
- Source
- Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.6, S.1395-1402
-
Marshakova-Shaikevich, I.: Bibliometric maps of field of science (2005)
0.03
0.03466491 = product of:
0.06932982 = sum of:
0.043894395 = weight(_text_:data in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043894395 = score(doc=1069,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
0.025435425 = product of:
0.05087085 = sum of:
0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05087085 = score(doc=1069,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The present paper is devoted to two directions in algorithmic classificatory procedures: the journal co-citation analysis as an example of citation networks and lexical analysis of keywords in the titles and texts. What is common to those approaches is the general idea of normalization of deviations of the observed data from the mathematical expectation. The application of the same formula leads to discovery of statistically significant links between objects (journals in one case, keywords - in the other). The results of the journal co-citation analysis are reflected in tables and map for field "Women's Studies" and for field "Information Science and Library Science". An experimental attempt at establishing textual links between words was carried out on two samples from SSCI Data base: (1) EDUCATION and (2) ETHICS. The EDUCATION file included 2180 documents (of which 751 had abstracts); the ETHICS file included 807 documents (289 abstracts). Some examples of the results of this pilot study are given in tabular form . The binary links between words discovered in this way may form triplets or other groups with more than two member words.
- Source
- Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.6, S.1534-1547
-
Zhao, D.: Challenges of scholarly publications on the Web to the evaluation of science : a comparison of author visibility on the Web and in print journals (2005)
0.03
0.032942846 = product of:
0.06588569 = sum of:
0.036211025 = weight(_text_:data in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036211025 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
0.029674664 = product of:
0.05934933 = sum of:
0.05934933 = weight(_text_:processing in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05934933 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This article reveals different patterns of scholarly communication in the XML research field on the Web and in print journals in terms of author visibility, and challenges the common practice of exclusively using the ISI's databases to obtain citation counts as scientific performance indicators. Results from this study demonstrate both the importance and the feasibility of the use of multiple citation data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication, and provide evidence for a developing "two tier" scholarly communication system.
- Source
- Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.6, S.1403-1418
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.03
0.029478844 = product of:
0.05895769 = sum of:
0.046268754 = weight(_text_:data in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046268754 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.31247756 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.012688936 = product of:
0.025377871 = sum of:
0.025377871 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025377871 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, 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=5171)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
- Date
- 9. 7.2006 10:22:35
-
Sidiropoulos, A.; Manolopoulos, Y.: ¬A new perspective to automatically rank scientific conferences using digital libraries (2005)
0.03
0.028236724 = product of:
0.05647345 = sum of:
0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 1011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031038022 = score(doc=1011,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 1011, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1011)
0.025435425 = product of:
0.05087085 = sum of:
0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 1011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05087085 = score(doc=1011,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 1011, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1011)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Citation analysis is performed in order to evaluate authors and scientific collections, such as journals and conference proceedings. Currently, two major systems exist that perform citation analysis: Science Citation Index (SCI) by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and CiteSeer by the NEC Research Institute. The SCI, mostly a manual system up until recently, is based on the notion of the ISI Impact Factor, which has been used extensively for citation analysis purposes. On the other hand the CiteSeer system is an automatically built digital library using agents technology, also based on the notion of ISI Impact Factor. In this paper, we investigate new alternative notions besides the ISI impact factor, in order to provide a novel approach aiming at ranking scientific collections. Furthermore, we present a web-based system that has been built by extracting data from the Databases and Logic Programming (DBLP) website of the University of Trier. Our system, by using the new citation metrics, emerges as a useful tool for ranking scientific collections. In this respect, some first remarks are presented, e.g. on ranking conferences related to databases.
- Source
- Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.2, S.289-312
-
Robinson-García, N.; Jiménez-Contreras, E.; Torres-Salinas, D.: Analyzing data citation practices using the data citation index : a study of backup strategies of end users (2016)
0.03
0.0250437 = product of:
0.1001748 = sum of:
0.1001748 = weight(_text_:data in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1001748 = score(doc=3225,freq=30.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.6765338 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
30.0 = termFreq=30.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- We present an analysis of data citation practices based on the Data Citation Index (DCI) (Thomson Reuters). This database launched in 2012 links data sets and data studies with citations received from the other citation indexes. The DCI harvests citations to research data from papers indexed in the Web of Science. It relies on the information provided by the data repository. The findings of this study show that data citation practices are far from common in most research fields. Some differences have been reported on the way researchers cite data: Although in the areas of science and engineering & technology data sets were the most cited, in the social sciences and arts & humanities data studies play a greater role. A total of 88.1% of the records have received no citation, but some repositories show very low uncitedness rates. Although data citation practices are rare in most fields, they have expanded in disciplines such as crystallography and genomics. We conclude by emphasizing the role that the DCI could play in encouraging the consistent, standardized citation of research data-a role that would enhance their value as a means of following the research process from data collection to publication.
-
Ma, N.; Guan, J.; Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2008)
0.02
0.022234414 = product of:
0.088937655 = sum of:
0.088937655 = sum of:
0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05087085 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038066804 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2064, 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=2064)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 31. 7.2008 14:22:05
- Source
- Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.800-810
-
Daquino, M.; Peroni, S.; Shotton, D.; Colavizza, G.; Ghavimi, B.; Lauscher, A.; Mayr, P.; Romanello, M.; Zumstein, P.: ¬The OpenCitations Data Model (2020)
0.02
0.020529725 = product of:
0.0821189 = sum of:
0.0821189 = weight(_text_:data in 38) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0821189 = score(doc=38,freq=14.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.55459267 = fieldWeight in 38, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=38)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- A variety of schemas and ontologies are currently used for the machine-readable description of bibliographic entities and citations. This diversity, and the reuse of the same ontology terms with different nuances, generates inconsistencies in data. Adoption of a single data model would facilitate data integration tasks regardless of the data supplier or context application. In this paper we present the OpenCitations Data Model (OCDM), a generic data model for describing bibliographic entities and citations, developed using Semantic Web technologies. We also evaluate the effective reusability of OCDM according to ontology evaluation practices, mention existing users of OCDM, and discuss the use and impact of OCDM in the wider open science community.
-
Wouters, P.; Vries, R. de: Formally citing the Web (2004)
0.02
0.018824484 = product of:
0.03764897 = sum of:
0.020692015 = weight(_text_:data in 3093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020692015 = score(doc=3093,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 3093, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3093)
0.016956951 = product of:
0.033913903 = sum of:
0.033913903 = weight(_text_:processing in 3093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033913903 = score(doc=3093,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.17890452 = fieldWeight in 3093, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3093)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- How do authors refer to Web-based information sources in their formal scientific publications? It is not yet weIl known how scientists and scholars actually include new types of information sources, available through the new media, in their published work. This article reports an a comparative study of the lists of references in 38 scientific journals in five different scientific and social scientific fields. The fields are sociology, library and information science, biochemistry and biotechnology, neuroscience, and the mathematics of computing. As is weIl known, references, citations, and hyperlinks play different roles in academic publishing and communication. Our study focuses an hyperlinks as attributes of references in formal scholarly publications. The study developed and applied a method to analyze the differential roles of publishing media in the analysis of scientific and scholarly literature references. The present secondary databases that include reference and citation data (the Web of Science) cannot be used for this type of research. By the automated processing and analysis of the full text of scientific and scholarly articles, we were able to extract the references and hyperlinks contained in these references in relation to other features of the scientific and scholarly literature. Our findings show that hyperlinking references are indeed, as expected, abundantly present in the formal literature. They also tend to cite more recent literature than the average reference. The large majority of the references are to Web instances of traditional scientific journals. Other types of Web-based information sources are less weIl represented in the lists of references, except in the case of pure e-journals. We conclude that this can be explained by taking the role of the publisher into account. Indeed, it seems that the shift from print-based to electronic publishing has created new roles for the publisher. By shaping the way scientific references are hyperlinking to other information sources, the publisher may have a large impact an the availability of scientific and scholarly information.
-
Thelwall, M.; Vaughan, L.; Björneborn, L.: Webometrics (2004)
0.02
0.01828933 = product of:
0.07315732 = sum of:
0.07315732 = weight(_text_:data in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07315732 = score(doc=4279,freq=16.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.49407038 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.
-
Fong, A.C.M.: Mining a Web citation database for document clustering (2002)
0.02
0.018105512 = product of:
0.07242205 = sum of:
0.07242205 = weight(_text_:data in 3940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07242205 = score(doc=3940,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 3940, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3940)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Theme
- Data Mining
-
Trivison, D.: Term co-occurrence in cited/citing journal articles as a measure of document similarity (1987)
0.02
0.016956951 = product of:
0.067827806 = sum of:
0.067827806 = product of:
0.13565561 = sum of:
0.13565561 = weight(_text_:processing in 5656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13565561 = score(doc=5656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.7156181 = fieldWeight in 5656, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5656)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 23(1987), S.183-194
-
Feitelson, D.G.; Yovel, U.: Predictive ranking of computer scientists using CiteSeer data (2004)
0.02
0.015679834 = product of:
0.06271934 = sum of:
0.06271934 = weight(_text_:data in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06271934 = score(doc=1259,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.42357713 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- The increasing availability of digital libraries with cross-citation data on the Internet enables new studies in bibliometrics. The paper focuses on the list of 10.000 top-cited authors in computer science available as part of CiteSeer. Using data from several consecutive lists a model of how authors accrue citations with time is constructed. By comparing the rate at which individual authors accrue citations with the average rate, predictions are made of how their ranking in the list will change in the future.
-
Kwok, K.L.: ¬The use of titles and cited titles as document representations for automatic classification (1975)
0.01
0.014837332 = product of:
0.05934933 = sum of:
0.05934933 = product of:
0.11869866 = sum of:
0.11869866 = weight(_text_:processing in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11869866 = score(doc=4347,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.6261658 = fieldWeight in 4347, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4347)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 11(1975), S.201-206
-
He, Y.; Hui, S.C.: Mining a web database for author cocitation analysis (2002)
0.01
0.014837332 = product of:
0.05934933 = sum of:
0.05934933 = product of:
0.11869866 = sum of:
0.11869866 = weight(_text_:processing in 2584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11869866 = score(doc=2584,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.6261658 = fieldWeight in 2584, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2584)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 38(2002) no.4, S.491-508
-
Moed, H.F.: Differences in the construction of SCI based bibliometric indicators among various producers : a first overview (1996)
0.01
0.014631464 = product of:
0.058525857 = sum of:
0.058525857 = weight(_text_:data in 5073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058525857 = score(doc=5073,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.3952563 = fieldWeight in 5073, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5073)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Discusses basic technical methodological issues with respect to data collection and the construction of bibliometric indicators, particular at the macro or meso level. Focuses on the use of the Science Citation Index. Aims to highlight important decisions that have to be made in the process of data collection and the construction of bibliometric indicators. Illustrates differences in the methodologies applied by several important producers of bibliometric indicators, thus illustrating the complexity of the process of 'standardization'
-
Meho, L.I.; Sonnenwald, D.H.: Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance : a case study of Kurdish scholarship (2000)
0.01
0.013439858 = product of:
0.053759433 = sum of:
0.053759433 = weight(_text_:data in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053759433 = score(doc=4382,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.3630661 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between citation ranking and peer evaluation in assessing senior faculty research performance. Other studies typically derive their peer evaluation data directly from referees, often in the form of ranking. This study uses two additional sources of peer evaluation data: citation contant analysis and book review content analysis. 2 main questions are investigated: (a) To what degree does citation ranking correlate with data from citation content analysis, book reviews and peer ranking? (b) Is citation ranking a valif evaluative indicator of research performance of senior faculty members? This study shows that citation ranking can provide a valid indicator for comparative evaluation of senior faculty research performance
-
Malanga, G.: Classifying and screening journal literature with citation data (1982)
0.01
0.01293251 = product of:
0.05173004 = sum of:
0.05173004 = weight(_text_:data in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05173004 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.046827413 = queryNorm
0.34936053 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
