Search (178 results, page 1 of 9)

0.17568068 = product of:
  0.52704203 = sum of:
    0.26352102 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26352102 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.35166267 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = 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)
    0.26352102 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26352102 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.35166267 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.

0.033940528 = product of:
  0.10182158 = sum of:
    0.079342045 = weight(_text_:history in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079342045 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
    0.022479536 = product of:
      0.044959072 = sum of:
        0.044959072 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044959072 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.026109848 = product of:
  0.07832954 = sum of:
    0.049588777 = weight(_text_:history in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049588777 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
    0.028740766 = product of:
      0.05748153 = sum of:
        0.05748153 = weight(_text_:century in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05748153 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.27668494 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.

0.026109848 = product of:
  0.07832954 = sum of:
    0.049588777 = weight(_text_:history in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049588777 = score(doc=2261,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
    0.028740766 = product of:
      0.05748153 = sum of:
        0.05748153 = weight(_text_:century in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05748153 = score(doc=2261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.27668494 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Many studies (in information science) have looked at the growth of science. In this study, we reexamine the question of the growth of science. To do this we (a) use current data up to publication year 2012 and (b) analyze the data across all disciplines and also separately for the natural sciences and for the medical and health sciences. Furthermore, the data were analyzed with an advanced statistical technique-segmented regression analysis-which can identify specific segments with similar growth rates in the history of science. The study is based on two different sets of bibliometric data: (a) the number of publications held as source items in the Web of Science (WoS, Thomson Reuters) per publication year and (b) the number of cited references in the publications of the source items per cited reference year. We looked at the rate at which science has grown since the mid-1600s. In our analysis of cited references we identified three essential growth phases in the development of science, which each led to growth rates tripling in comparison with the previous phase: from less than 1% up to the middle of the 18th century, to 2 to 3% up to the period between the two world wars, and 8 to 9% to 2010.

0.025174957 = product of:
  0.15104973 = sum of:
    0.15104973 = weight(_text_:21st in 2981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15104973 = score(doc=2981,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2381352 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.74105 = idf(docFreq=385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.6343024 = fieldWeight in 2981, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.74105 = idf(docFreq=385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2981)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff

0.025174957 = product of:
  0.15104973 = sum of:
    0.15104973 = weight(_text_:21st in 2987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15104973 = score(doc=2987,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2381352 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.74105 = idf(docFreq=385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.6343024 = fieldWeight in 2987, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.74105 = idf(docFreq=385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2987)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff

0.023141433 = product of:
  0.13884859 = sum of:
    0.13884859 = weight(_text_:history in 2151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13884859 = score(doc=2151,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.7195668 = fieldWeight in 2151, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2151)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.02121283 = product of:
  0.063638486 = sum of:
    0.049588777 = weight(_text_:history in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049588777 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.01404971 = product of:
      0.02809942 = sum of:
        0.02809942 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02809942 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.

0.02088788 = product of:
  0.06266364 = sum of:
    0.039671022 = weight(_text_:history in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039671022 = score(doc=3585,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.20559052 = fieldWeight in 3585, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3585)
    0.022992613 = product of:
      0.045985226 = sum of:
        0.045985226 = weight(_text_:century in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045985226 = score(doc=3585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.22134796 = fieldWeight in 3585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

Inhalt: Biblio/sciento/infor-metrics : terminological issues and early historical developments -- The empirical foundations of bibliometrics : the Science citation index -- The philosophical foundations of bibliometrics : Bernal, Merton, Price, Garfield, and Small -- The mathematical foundations of bibliometrics -- Maps and paradigms : bibliographic citations at the service of the history and sociology of science -- Impact factor and the evaluation of scientists : bibliographic citations at the service of science policy and management -- On the shoulders of dwarfs : citation as rhetorical device and the criticisms to the normative model -- Measuring scientific communication in the twentieth century : from bibliometrics to cybermetrics.

0.02088788 = product of:
  0.06266364 = sum of:
    0.039671022 = weight(_text_:history in 3805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039671022 = score(doc=3805,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.20559052 = fieldWeight in 3805, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3805)
    0.022992613 = product of:
      0.045985226 = sum of:
        0.045985226 = weight(_text_:century in 3805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045985226 = score(doc=3805,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.22134796 = fieldWeight in 3805, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The research evaluation market is booming. "Ranking," "metrics," "h-index," and "impact factors" are reigning buzzwords. Government and research administrators want to evaluate everything -- teachers, professors, training programs, universities -- using quantitative indicators. Among the tools used to measure "research excellence," bibliometrics -- aggregate data on publications and citations -- has become dominant. Bibliometrics is hailed as an "objective" measure of research quality, a quantitative measure more useful than "subjective" and intuitive evaluation methods such as peer review that have been used since scientific papers were first published in the seventeenth century. In this book, Yves Gingras offers a spirited argument against an unquestioning reliance on bibliometrics as an indicator of research quality. Gingras shows that bibliometric rankings have no real scientific validity, rarely measuring what they pretend to. Although the study of publication and citation patterns, at the proper scales, can yield insights on the global dynamics of science over time, ill-defined quantitative indicators often generate perverse and unintended effects on the direction of research. Moreover, abuse of bibliometrics occurs when data is manipulated to boost rankings. Gingras looks at the politics of evaluation and argues that using numbers can be a way to control scientists and diminish their autonomy in the evaluation process. Proposing precise criteria for establishing the validity of indicators at a given scale of analysis, Gingras questions why universities are so eager to let invalid indicators influence their research strategy.

Series

History and foundations of information science

0.016529594 = product of:
  0.099177554 = sum of:
    0.099177554 = weight(_text_:history in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099177554 = score(doc=2492,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.5139763 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.016363464 = product of:
  0.09818078 = sum of:
    0.09818078 = weight(_text_:history in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09818078 = score(doc=2809,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.5088106 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Provides a synoptic review and history of citation indexes and their evolution into research evaluation tools including a discussion of the use of bibliometric data for evaluating US institutions (academic departments) by the National Research Council (NRC). Covers the origin and uses of periodical impact factors, validation studies of citation analysis, information retrieval and dissemination (current awareness), citation consciousness, historiography and science mapping, Citation Classics, and the history of contemporary science. Illustrates the retrieval of information by cited reference searching, especially as it applies to avoiding duplicated research. Discusses the 15 year cumulative impacts of periodicals and the percentage of uncitedness, the emergence of scientometrics, old boy networks, and citation frequency distributions. Concludes with observations about the future of citation indexing

0.015328409 = product of:
  0.09197045 = sum of:
    0.09197045 = product of:
      0.1839409 = sum of:
        0.1839409 = weight(_text_:century in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1839409 = score(doc=324,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.88539183 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Investigates time dependencies of Bradford distributions for 19th century mathematics and for 20th century logic. To facilitate comparisons, uses 'Pareto's law' and Lorenz diagrams for the representation of empirical Bradford distributions. Shows that the character of a Bradford distribution (including the 'core zone' and the 'Groos droop') depends on the stage in the development of a scientific field and that it varies with the time span considered

0.014315048 = product of:
  0.085890286 = sum of:
    0.085890286 = weight(_text_:history in 1530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085890286 = score(doc=1530,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.44511652 = fieldWeight in 1530, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1530)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A theory of "megacitation" is introduced and used in an experiment to demonstrate how a qualitative scholarly book review can be converted into a weighted bibliometric indicator. We employ a manual human-coding approach to classify book reviews in the field of history based on reviewers' assessments of a book author's scholarly credibility (SC) and writing style (WS). In total, 100 book reviews were selected from the American Historical Review and coded for their positive/negative valence on these two dimensions. Most were coded as positive (68% for SC and 47% for WS), and there was also a small positive correlation between SC and WS (r = 0.2). We then constructed a classifier, combining both manual design and machine learning, to categorize sentiment-based sentences in history book reviews. The machine classifier produced a matched accuracy (matched to the human coding) of approximately 75% for SC and 64% for WS. WS was found to be more difficult to classify by machine than SC because of the reviewers' use of more subtle language. With further training data, a machine-learning approach could be useful for automatically classifying a large number of history book reviews at once. Weighted megacitations can be especially valuable if they are used in conjunction with regular book/journal citations, and "libcitations" (i.e., library holding counts) for a comprehensive assessment of a book/monograph's scholarly impact.

0.013223674 = product of:
  0.079342045 = sum of:
    0.079342045 = weight(_text_:history in 6693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079342045 = score(doc=6693,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 6693, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6693)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Suggests that the literature on the role of chance, error or accident in scientific progress tends to be anecdotal, hagiographic and rarely systematic. In contrast, presents a new approach to this topic, the study of serendipity in scietific discovery. Bases the approach on the study of highly cited papers obtained from the 'Citation Classics' feature of 'Current Contents'. Reports on the analysis of 205 'Citation Classics' commentaries from the 400 most cited papers in the recent history of science, and presents the results of the analysis

0.013223674 = product of:
  0.079342045 = sum of:
    0.079342045 = weight(_text_:history in 7170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079342045 = score(doc=7170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 7170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7170)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Part 1 of a 2 part article reviewing the technique of bibliometrics and one of its most widely used methods, citation analysis. Traces the history and development of bibliometrics, including its definition, scope, role in scholarly communication and applications. Treats citation analysis similarly with particular reference to bibliographic coupling and cocitation coupling

0.013223674 = product of:
  0.079342045 = sum of:
    0.079342045 = weight(_text_:history in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079342045 = score(doc=407,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 407, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=407)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Discusses bibliometrics and its relationship to historical studies. Recommends that historical and qualitative bibliometrics are explored to examine community formation of scientific and scholarly communication through institutional affiliation. The study shows an institutional and geographical mapping of this school's contributors. Although a recent sample, bibliometrics can be utilized to explore journals from the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries for the history of disciplines, including library and information science

0.013223674 = product of:
  0.079342045 = sum of:
    0.079342045 = weight(_text_:history in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079342045 = score(doc=175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=175)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Examines non-indexed indirect collective citedness (NIICC), through a study of 621 articles from 1969 volumes of 2 physics journals, in order to establish the frequency of the phenomenon in the research material. Findings refute the representativity ofd the citation indexes in the field of citedness in the scientific journal literature during the science history period of early Big Science as NIICC was found to be widespread

0.013223674 = product of:
  0.079342045 = sum of:
    0.079342045 = weight(_text_:history in 4129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079342045 = score(doc=4129,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 4129, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4129)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Leydesdorff, in his 1998 paper 'Theories of citation?', addresses the history of citations and citation analysis, and the transformation of a reference mechanism into a purportedly quantitative measure of research impact/quality. Examines different facets of citations and citation analysis, and discusses the validity of citation analysis as a useful measure of research impact/quality

0.013223674 = product of:
  0.079342045 = sum of:
    0.079342045 = weight(_text_:history in 3807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079342045 = score(doc=3807,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 3807, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3807)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)