Search (87 results, page 1 of 5)

0.069553316 = product of:
  0.10432997 = sum of:
    0.02025921 = weight(_text_:in in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02025921 = score(doc=4460,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.28515202 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
    0.084070764 = sum of:
      0.04161153 = weight(_text_:science in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04161153 = score(doc=4460,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
      0.042459235 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042459235 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Aggregated journal-journal citations can be used for mapping the intellectual organization of the sciences in terms of specialties because the latter can be considered as interreading communities. Can the journal-journal citations also be used as early indicators of change by comparing the files for two subsequent years? Probabilistic entropy measures enable us to analyze changes in large datasets at different levels of aggregation and in considerable detail. Compares Journal Citation Reports of the Social Science Citation Index for 1999 with similar data for 1998 and analyzes the differences using these measures. Compares the various indicators with similar developments in the Science Citation Index. Specialty formation seems a more important mechanism in the development of the social sciences than in the natural and life sciences, but the developments in the social sciences are volatile. The use of aggregate statistics based on the Science Citation Index is ill-advised in the case of the social sciences because of structural differences in the underlying dynamics.

Date

6.11.2005 19:02:22

0.06695911 = product of:
  0.10043866 = sum of:
    0.016016312 = weight(_text_:in in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016016312 = score(doc=4186,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
    0.08442235 = sum of:
      0.04903965 = weight(_text_:science in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04903965 = score(doc=4186,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
      0.035382695 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035382695 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.

Date

22. 1.2011 12:51:07

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.217-229

0.05835422 = product of:
  0.08753133 = sum of:
    0.011096427 = weight(_text_:in in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011096427 = score(doc=4681,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
    0.0764349 = sum of:
      0.03397567 = weight(_text_:science in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03397567 = score(doc=4681,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
      0.042459235 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042459235 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.

Date

8. 1.2019 18:22:45

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.198-201

0.05612269 = product of:
  0.084184036 = sum of:
    0.014125061 = weight(_text_:in in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125061 = score(doc=3089,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
    0.07005897 = sum of:
      0.034676272 = weight(_text_:science in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034676272 = score(doc=3089,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
      0.035382695 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035382695 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3089, 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=3089)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Climate change as a complex physical and social issue has gained increasing attention in the natural as well as the social sciences. Climate change research has become more interdisciplinary and even transdisciplinary as a typical Mode-2 science that is also dependent on an application context for its further development. We propose to approach interdisciplinarity as a co-construction of the knowledge base in the reference patterns and the programmatic focus in the editorials in the core journal of the climate-change sciences-Climatic Change-during the period 1977-2013. First, we analyze the knowledge base of the journal and map journal-journal relations on the basis of the references in the articles. Second, we follow the development of the programmatic focus by analyzing the semantics in the editorials. We argue that interdisciplinarity is a result of the co-construction between different agendas: The selection of publications into the knowledge base of the journal, and the adjustment of the programmatic focus to the political context in the editorials. Our results show a widening of the knowledge base from referencing the multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science to citing journals from specialist fields. The programmatic focus follows policy-oriented issues and incorporates public metaphors.

Date

24. 8.2016 17:53:22

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.9, S.2181-2193

0.05562249 = product of:
  0.08343373 = sum of:
    0.016950073 = weight(_text_:in in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016950073 = score(doc=2761,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
    0.06648366 = sum of:
      0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024024425 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
      0.042459235 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042459235 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2761, 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=2761)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

International co-authorship relations and university-industry-government (Triple Helix) relations have hitherto been studied separately. Using Japanese publication data for the 1981-2004 period, we were able to study both kinds of relations in a single design. In the Japanese file, 1,277,030 articles with at least one Japanese address were attributed to the three sectors, and we know additionally whether these papers were coauthored internationally. Using the mutual information in three and four dimensions, respectively, we show that the Japanese Triple-Helix system has been continuously eroded at the national level. However, since the mid-1990s, international coauthorship relations have contributed to a reduction of the uncertainty at the national level. In other words, the national publication system of Japan has developed a capacity to retain surplus value generated internationally. In a final section, we compare these results with an analysis based on similar data for Canada. A relative uncoupling of national university-industry-government relations because of international collaborations is indicated in both countries.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:07:20

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.778-788

0.04405373 = product of:
  0.06608059 = sum of:
    0.010677542 = weight(_text_:in in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010677542 = score(doc=4463,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
    0.05540305 = sum of:
      0.020020355 = weight(_text_:science in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020020355 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.035382695 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035382695 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article considers the relationships among meaning generation, selection, and the dynamics of discourse from a variety of perspectives ranging from information theory and biology to sociology. Following Husserl's idea of a horizon of meanings in intersubjective communication, we propose a way in which, using Shannon's equations, the generation and selection of meanings from a horizon of possibilities can be considered probabilistically. The information-theoretical dynamics we articulate considers a process of meaning generation within cultural evolution: information is imbued with meaning, and through this process, the number of options for the selection of meaning in discourse proliferates. The redundancy of possible meanings contributes to a codification of expectations within the discourse. Unlike hardwired DNA, the codes of nonbiological systems can coevolve with the variations. Spanning horizons of meaning, the codes structure the communications as selection environments that shape discourses. Discursive knowledge can be considered as meta-coded communication that enables us to translate among differently coded communications. The dynamics of discursive knowledge production can thus infuse the historical dynamics with a cultural evolution by adding options, that is, by increasing redundancy. A calculus of redundancy is presented as an indicator whereby these dynamics of discourse and meaning may be explored empirically.

Date

29. 9.2018 11:22:09

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.10, S.1181-1192

0.0324876 = product of:
  0.0487314 = sum of:
    0.016950073 = weight(_text_:in in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016950073 = score(doc=4813,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
    0.03178133 = product of:
      0.06356266 = sum of:
        0.06356266 = weight(_text_:science in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06356266 = score(doc=4813,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.4619987 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Methods developed for mapping the journal structure contained in aggregated journal-journal citations in the Science Citation Index (SCI; Thomson ISI, 2002) are applied to the Chinese Science Citation Database of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. This database covered 991 journals in 2001, of which only 37 originally had English titles; only 31 of which were covered by the SCI. Using factor-analytical and graph-analytical techniques, the authors show that the journal relations are dually structured. The main structure is the intellectual organization of the journals in journal groups (as in the international SCI), but the university-based journals provide an institutional layer that orients this structure towards practical ends (e.g., agriculture). This mechanism of integration is further distinguished from the role of general science journals. The Chinese Science Citation Database thus exhibits the characteristics of "Mode 2" or transdisciplinary science in the production of scientific knowledge more than its Western counterpart does. The contexts of application lead to correlation among the components.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.14, S.1469-1479

0.03119248 = product of:
  0.04678872 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=2779,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
    0.03397567 = product of:
      0.06795134 = sum of:
        0.06795134 = weight(_text_:science in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06795134 = score(doc=2779,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.49389738 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.

Aid

Web of Science

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.707-714

0.031130819 = product of:
  0.046696227 = sum of:
    0.022422835 = weight(_text_:in in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022422835 = score(doc=4466,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.31560543 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
    0.024273392 = product of:
      0.048546784 = sum of:
        0.048546784 = weight(_text_:science in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048546784 = score(doc=4466,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Fractional counting of citations can improve on ranking of multidisciplinary research units (such as universities) by normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of differences in citation behavior. Furthermore, normalization in terms of citing papers abolishes the unsolved questions in scientometrics about the delineation of fields of science in terms of journals and normalization when comparing among different (sets of) journals. Using publication and citation data of seven Korean research universities, we demonstrate the advantages and the differences in the rankings, explain the possible statistics, and suggest ways to visualize the differences in (citing) audiences in terms of a network.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1146-1155

0.030275896 = product of:
  0.045413844 = sum of:
    0.021140454 = weight(_text_:in in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021140454 = score(doc=1249,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.29755569 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
    0.024273392 = product of:
      0.048546784 = sum of:
        0.048546784 = weight(_text_:science in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048546784 = score(doc=1249,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Can the inclusion of new journals in the Science Citation Index be used for the indication of structural change in the database, and how can this change be compared with reorganizations of reiations among previously included journals? Change in the number of journals (n) is distinguished from change in the number of journal categories (m). Although the number of journals can be considered as a given at each moment in time, the number of journal categories is based an a reconstruction that is time-stamped ex post. The reflexive reconstruction is in need of an update when new information becomes available in a next year. Implications of this shift towards an evolutionary perspective are specified.

Object

Science Citation Index

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.12, S.987-994

0.028829334 = product of:
  0.043244 = sum of:
    0.019219575 = weight(_text_:in in 3580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019219575 = score(doc=3580,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.27051896 = fieldWeight in 3580, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3580)
    0.024024425 = product of:
      0.04804885 = sum of:
        0.04804885 = weight(_text_:science in 3580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04804885 = score(doc=3580,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 3580, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We argue that the communication structures in the Chinese social sciences have not yet been sufficiently reformed. Citation patterns among Chinese domestic journals in three subject areas - political science and Marxism, library and information science, and economics - are compared with their counterparts internationally. Like their colleagues in the natural and life sciences, Chinese scholars in the social sciences provide fewer references to journal publications than their international counterparts; like their international colleagues, social scientists provide fewer references than natural sciences. The resulting citation networks, therefore, are sparse. Nevertheless, the citation structures clearly suggest that the Chinese social sciences are far less specialized in terms of disciplinary delineations than their international counterparts. Marxism studies are more established than political science in China. In terms of the impact of the Chinese political system on academic fields, disciplines closely related to the political system are less specialized than those weakly related. In the discussion section, we explore reasons that may cause the current stagnation and provide policy recommendations.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1360-1376

0.028368562 = product of:
  0.042552844 = sum of:
    0.015692718 = weight(_text_:in in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015692718 = score(doc=70,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
    0.026860125 = product of:
      0.05372025 = sum of:
        0.05372025 = weight(_text_:science in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05372025 = score(doc=70,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The journal structure in the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database (CSTPCD) is analyzed from three perspectives: the database level, the specialty level, and the institutional level (i.e., university journals vs. journals issued by the Chinese Academy of Sciences). The results are compared with those for (Chinese) journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI). The frequency of journal-journal citation relations in the CSTPCD is an order of magnitude lower than in the SCI. Chinese journals, especially high-quality journals, prefer to cite international journals rather than domestic ones; however, Chinese journals do not get an equivalent reception from their international counterparts. The international visibility of Chinese journals is low, but varies among fields of science. Journals of the Chinese Academy of Sciences have a better reception in the international scientific community than university journals.

Object

Science Citation Index

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.2, S.223-236

0.026448784 = product of:
  0.039673176 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=3436,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
    0.026860125 = product of:
      0.05372025 = sum of:
        0.05372025 = weight(_text_:science in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05372025 = score(doc=3436,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The possibilities of using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) for journal mapping have not been sufficiently recognized because of the absence of a Journal Citations Report (JCR) for this database. A quasi-JCR for the A&HCI ([2008]) was constructed from the data contained in the Web of Science and is used for the evaluation of two journals as examples: Leonardo and Art Journal. The maps on the basis of the aggregated journal-journal citations within this domain can be compared with maps including references to journals in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Art journals are cited by (social) science journals more than by other art journals, but these journals draw upon one another in terms of their own references. This cultural impact in terms of being cited is not found when documents with a topic such as digital humanities are analyzed. This community of practice functions more as an intellectual organizer than a journal.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.4, S.787-801

0.02595077 = product of:
  0.038926154 = sum of:
    0.01812039 = weight(_text_:in in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01812039 = score(doc=1187,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
    0.020805765 = product of:
      0.04161153 = sum of:
        0.04161153 = weight(_text_:science in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04161153 = score(doc=1187,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Using the referencing patterns in articles in Cognitive Science over three decades, we analyze the knowledge base of this literature in terms of its changing disciplinary composition. Three periods are distinguished: (A) construction of the interdisciplinary space in the 1980s, (B) development of an interdisciplinary orientation in the 1990s, and (C) reintegration into "cognitive psychology" in the 2000s. The fluidity and fuzziness of the interdisciplinary delineations in the different visualizations can be reduced and clarified using factor analysis. We also explore newly available routines ("CorText") to analyze this development in terms of "tubes" using an alluvial map and compare the results with an animation (using "Visone"). The historical specificity of this development can be compared with the development of "artificial intelligence" into an integrated specialty during this same period. Interdisciplinarity should be defined differently at the level of journals and of specialties.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.164-177

0.025599834 = product of:
  0.03839975 = sum of:
    0.016016312 = weight(_text_:in in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016016312 = score(doc=3231,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.022383438 = product of:
      0.044766877 = sum of:
        0.044766877 = weight(_text_:science in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044766877 = score(doc=3231,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3095-3100

0.02515137 = product of:
  0.037727054 = sum of:
    0.0177067 = weight(_text_:in in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0177067 = score(doc=3090,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.24922498 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
    0.020020355 = product of:
      0.04004071 = sum of:
        0.04004071 = weight(_text_:science in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04004071 = score(doc=3090,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We compare the network of aggregated journal-journal citation relations provided by the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2012 of the Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) with similar data based on Scopus 2012. First, global and overlay maps were developed for the 2 sets separately. Using fuzzy-string matching and ISSN numbers, we were able to match 10,524 journal names between the 2 sets: 96.4% of the 10,936 journals contained in JCR, or 51.2% of the 20,554 journals covered by Scopus. Network analysis was pursued on the set of journals shared between the 2 databases and the 2 sets of unique journals. Citations among the shared journals are more comprehensively covered in JCR than in Scopus, so the network in JCR is denser and more connected than in Scopus. The ranking of shared journals in terms of indegree (i.e., numbers of citing journals) or total citations is similar in both databases overall (Spearman rank correlation ??>?0.97), but some individual journals rank very differently. Journals that are unique to Scopus seem to be less important-they are citing shared journals rather than being cited by them-but the humanities are covered better in Scopus than in JCR.

Object

Web of science

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.9, S.2194-2211

0.024875995 = product of:
  0.03731399 = sum of:
    0.019975852 = weight(_text_:in in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019975852 = score(doc=1505,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.2811637 = fieldWeight in 1505, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1505)
    0.017338136 = product of:
      0.034676272 = sum of:
        0.034676272 = weight(_text_:science in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034676272 = score(doc=1505,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 1505, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

International coauthorship relations have increasingly shaped another dynamic in the natural and life sciences during recent decades. However, much less is known about such internationalization in the social sciences. In this study, we analyze international and domestic coauthorship relations of all citable items in the DVD version of the Social Sciences Citation Index 2011 (SSCI). Network statistics indicate 4 groups of nations: (a) an Asian-Pacific one to which all Anglo-Saxon nations (including the United Kingdom and Ireland) are attributed, (b) a continental European one including also the Latin-American countries, (c) the Scandinavian nations, and (d) a community of African nations. Within the EU-28, 11 of the EU-15 states have dominant positions. In many respects, the network parameters are not so different from the Science Citation Index. In addition to these descriptive statistics, we address the question of the relative weights of the international versus domestic networks. An information-theoretical test is proposed at the level of organizational addresses within each nation; the results are mixed, but the international dimension is more important than the national one in the aggregated sets (as in the Science Citation Index). In some countries (e.g., France), however, the national distribution is leading more than the international one. Decomposition of the United States in terms of states shows a similarly mixed result; more U.S. states are domestically oriented in the SSCI and more internationally in the SCI. The international networks have grown during the last decades in addition to the national ones but not by replacing them.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.10, S.2111-2126

0.024812816 = product of:
  0.037219223 = sum of:
    0.012945832 = weight(_text_:in in 8281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012945832 = score(doc=8281,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 8281, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8281)
    0.024273392 = product of:
      0.048546784 = sum of:
        0.048546784 = weight(_text_:science in 8281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048546784 = score(doc=8281,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 8281, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Describes a method for the generation of journal-journal citation maps on the basis of the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index. Discusses sources of potential error from this data. Offers strategies to counteract such errors. Analyzes a number of scientometric periodical mappings in relation to mappings from previous studies which have used tape data and/or data from ISI's Journal Citation Reports. Compares the quality of these mappings with the quality of those for previous years in order to demonstrate the use of such mappings as indicators for dynamic developments in the sciences

Object

Science Citation Index

0.024774656 = product of:
  0.037161984 = sum of:
    0.010677542 = weight(_text_:in in 2713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010677542 = score(doc=2713,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2713, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2713)
    0.026484441 = product of:
      0.052968882 = sum of:
        0.052968882 = weight(_text_:science in 2713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052968882 = score(doc=2713,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.38499892 = fieldWeight in 2713, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2713)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The decomposition of scientific literature into disciplinary and subdisciplinary structures is one of the core goals of scientometrics. How can we achieve a good decomposition? The ISI subject categories classify journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI). The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports can be aggregated on the basis of these categories. This leads to an asymmetrical matrix (citing versus cited) that is much more densely populated than the underlying matrix at the journal level. Exploratory factor analysis of the matrix of subject categories suggests a 14-factor solution. This solution could be interpreted as the disciplinary structure of science. The nested maps of science (corresponding to 14 factors, 172 categories, and 6,164 journals) are online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/map06. Presumably, inaccuracies in the attribution of journals to the ISI subject categories average out so that the factor analysis reveals the main structures. The mapping of science could, therefore, be comprehensive and reliable on a large scale albeit imprecise in terms of the attribution of journals to the ISI subject categories.

Object

Map of Science

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.2, S.348-362

0.024558317 = product of:
  0.036837474 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=447,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 447, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=447)
    0.024024425 = product of:
      0.04804885 = sum of:
        0.04804885 = weight(_text_:science in 447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04804885 = score(doc=447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 447, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.11, S.2349-2350