-
Kessler, M.M.: Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers (1963)
0.03
0.030406015 = product of:
0.06081203 = sum of:
0.06081203 = product of:
0.12162406 = sum of:
0.12162406 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12162406 = score(doc=4993,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.68819946 = fieldWeight in 4993, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4993)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.03
0.02750402 = product of:
0.05500804 = sum of:
0.05500804 = sum of:
0.030406015 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030406015 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.024602026 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024602026 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = 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)
- 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
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.02
0.024602026 = product of:
0.04920405 = sum of:
0.04920405 = product of:
0.0984081 = sum of:
0.0984081 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0984081 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
-
Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992)
0.02
0.024602026 = product of:
0.04920405 = sum of:
0.04920405 = product of:
0.0984081 = sum of:
0.0984081 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0984081 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 7. 2.2005 14:10:22
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.02
0.021745324 = product of:
0.04349065 = sum of:
0.04349065 = product of:
0.0869813 = sum of:
0.0869813 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0869813 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
-
Boyack, K.W.; Small, H.; Klavans, R.: Improving the accuracy of co-citation clustering using full text (2013)
0.02
0.019749286 = product of:
0.03949857 = sum of:
0.03949857 = product of:
0.07899714 = sum of:
0.07899714 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07899714 = score(doc=1036,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 1036, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1036)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Historically, co-citation models have been based only on bibliographic information. Full-text analysis offers the opportunity to significantly improve the quality of the signals upon which these co-citation models are based. In this work we study the effect of reference proximity on the accuracy of co-citation clusters. Using a corpus of 270,521 full text documents from 2007, we compare the results of traditional co-citation clustering using only the bibliographic information to results from co-citation clustering where proximity between reference pairs is factored into the pairwise relationships. We find that accounting for reference proximity from full text can increase the textual coherence (a measure of accuracy) of a co-citation cluster solution by up to 30% over the traditional approach based on bibliographic information.
-
Cronin, B.: Semiotics and evaluative bibliometrics (2000)
0.02
0.01900376 = product of:
0.03800752 = sum of:
0.03800752 = product of:
0.07601504 = sum of:
0.07601504 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07601504 = score(doc=4542,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 4542, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4542)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The reciprocal relationship between bibliographic references and citations in the context of the scholarly communication system is examined. Semiotic analysis of referencing behaviours and citation counting reveals the complexity of prevailing sign systems and associated symbolic practices.
-
McVeigh, M.E.: Citation indexes and the Web of Science (2009)
0.02
0.016125225 = product of:
0.03225045 = sum of:
0.03225045 = product of:
0.0645009 = sum of:
0.0645009 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0645009 = score(doc=3848,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 3848, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3848)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The Web of Science, an online database of bibliographic information produced by Thomson Reuters- draws its real value from the scholarly citation index at its core. By indexing the cited references from each paper as a separate part of the bibliographic data, a citation index creates a pathway by which a paper can be linked backward in time to the body of work that preceded it, as well as linked forward in time to its scholarly descendants. This entry provides a brief history of the development of the citation index, its core functionalities, and the way these unique data are provided to users through the Web of Science.
-
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
0.016125225 = product of:
0.03225045 = sum of:
0.03225045 = product of:
0.0645009 = sum of:
0.0645009 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 38) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0645009 = score(doc=38,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 38, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=38)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
-
Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002)
0.02
0.015376267 = product of:
0.030752534 = sum of:
0.030752534 = product of:
0.061505068 = sum of:
0.061505068 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061505068 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
-
Osareh, F.: Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis : a review of literature I (1996)
0.02
0.0152030075 = product of:
0.030406015 = sum of:
0.030406015 = product of:
0.06081203 = sum of:
0.06081203 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 7170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06081203 = score(doc=7170,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 7170, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7170)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
-
Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003)
0.01
0.0134376865 = product of:
0.026875373 = sum of:
0.026875373 = product of:
0.053750746 = sum of:
0.053750746 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053750746 = score(doc=5176,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.01
0.013047196 = product of:
0.026094392 = sum of:
0.026094392 = product of:
0.052188784 = sum of:
0.052188784 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052188784 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:22:35
-
Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013)
0.01
0.012301013 = product of:
0.024602026 = sum of:
0.024602026 = product of:
0.04920405 = sum of:
0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04920405 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 17.12.2013 11:02:22
-
Araújo, P.C. de; Gutierres Castanha, R.C.; Hjoerland, B.: Citation indexing and indexes (2021)
0.01
0.011402255 = product of:
0.02280451 = sum of:
0.02280451 = product of:
0.04560902 = sum of:
0.04560902 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04560902 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.
-
Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001)
0.01
0.010763386 = product of:
0.021526773 = sum of:
0.021526773 = product of:
0.043053545 = sum of:
0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043053545 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 16.12.2001 14:01:22
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006)
0.01
0.010763386 = product of:
0.021526773 = sum of:
0.021526773 = product of:
0.043053545 = sum of:
0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043053545 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:20:01
-
Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020)
0.01
0.010763386 = product of:
0.021526773 = sum of:
0.021526773 = product of:
0.043053545 = sum of:
0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043053545 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 17.11.2020 12:22:59
-
De Bellis, N.: Bibliometrics and citation analysis : from the Science citation index to cybermetrics (2008)
0.01
0.010750149 = product of:
0.021500299 = sum of:
0.021500299 = product of:
0.043000598 = sum of:
0.043000598 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043000598 = score(doc=3585,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.24331525 = fieldWeight in 3585, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3585)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
-
Marion, L.S.; McCain, K.W.: Contrasting views of software engineering journals : author cocitation choices and indexer vocabulary assignments (2001)
0.01
0.00950188 = product of:
0.01900376 = sum of:
0.01900376 = product of:
0.03800752 = sum of:
0.03800752 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03800752 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We explore the intellectual subject structure and research themes in software engineering through the identification and analysis of a core journal literature. We examine this literature via two expert perspectives: that of the author, who identified significant work by citing it (journal cocitation analysis), and that of the professional indexer, who tags published work with subject terms to facilitate retrieval from a bibliographic database (subject profile analysis). The data sources are SCISEARCH (the on-line version of Science Citation Index), and INSPEC (a database covering software engineering, computer science, and information systems). We use data visualization tools (cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and PFNets) to show the "intellectual maps" of software engineering. Cocitation and subject profile analyses demonstrate that software engineering is a distinct interdisciplinary field, valuing practical and applied aspects, and spanning a subject continuum from "programming-in-the-smalI" to "programming-in-the-large." This continuum mirrors the software development life cycle by taking the operating system or major application from initial programming through project management, implementation, and maintenance. Object orientation is an integral but distinct subject area in software engineering. Key differences are the importance of management and programming: (1) cocitation analysis emphasizes project management and systems development; (2) programming techniques/languages are more influential in subject profiles; (3) cocitation profiles place object-oriented journals separately and centrally while the subject profile analysis locates these journals with the programming/languages group
