Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016720567 = product of:
  0.06688227 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=654)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 654, 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=654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This paper explores the possible citation chain reactions of a Nobel Prize using the mathematician Robert J. Aumann as a case example. The results show that the award of the Nobel Prize in 2005 affected not only the citations to his work, but also affected the citations to the references in his scientific oeuvre. The results indicate that the spillover effect is almost as powerful as the effect itself. We are consequently able to document a ripple effect in which the awarding of the Nobel Prize ignites a citation chain reaction to Aumann's scientific oeuvre and to the references in its nearest citation network. The effect is discussed using innovation decision process theory as a point of departure to identify the factors that created a bandwagon effect leading to the reported observations.

Date

22. 3.2013 16:21:09

0.009055889 = product of:
  0.07244711 = sum of:
    0.07244711 = weight(_text_:studies in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07244711 = score(doc=3601,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.45816267 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Citation frequencies are commonly interpreted as measures of quality or impact. Yet, the true nature of citations and their proper interpretation have been the center of a long, but still unresolved discussion in Bibliometrics. A comparison of 67,578 pairs of studies on the same healthcare topic, with the same publication age (1-15 years) reveals that when one of the studies is being selected for citation, it has on average received about three times as many citations as the other study. However, the average citation-gap between selected or deselected studies narrows slightly over time, which fits poorly with the name-dropping interpretation and better with the quality and impact-interpretation. The results demonstrate that authors in the field of Healthcare tend to cite highly cited documents when they have a choice. This is more likely caused by differences related to quality than differences related to status of the publications cited.

0.0073941024 = product of:
  0.05915282 = sum of:
    0.05915282 = weight(_text_:studies in 4210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05915282 = score(doc=4210,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 4210, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4210)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The greatest number of open access journals (OAJs) is found in the sciences and their influence is growing. However, there are only a few studies on the acceptance and thereby integration of these OAJs in the scholarly communication system. Even fewer studies provide insight into the differences across disciplines. This study is an analysis of the citing behaviour in journals within three science fields: biology, mathematics, and pharmacy and pharmacology. It is a statistical analysis of OAJs as well as non-OAJs including both the citing and cited side of the journal to journal citations. The multivariate linear regression reveals many similarities in citing behaviour across fields and media. But it also points to great differences in the integration of OAJs. The integration of OAJs in the scholarly communication system varies considerably across fields. The implications for bibliometric research are discussed.

0.0063469075 = product of:
  0.05077526 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=3264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 3264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3264)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In this paper we address the various formulations of impact of articles, usually groups of articles as gauged by citations that these articles receive over a certain period of time. The journal impact factor, as published by ISI (Philadelphia, PA), is the best-known example of a formulation of impact of journals (considered as a set of articles) but many others have been defined in the literature. Impact factors have varying publication and citation periods and the chosen length of these periods enables, e.g., a distinction between synchronous and diachronous impact factors. It is shown how an impact factor for the general case can be defined. Two alternatives for a general impact factor are proposed, depending an whether different publication years are seen as a whole, and hence treating each one of them differently, or by operating with citation periods of identical length but allowing each publication period different starting points.

0.0061617517 = product of:
  0.049294014 = sum of:
    0.049294014 = weight(_text_:studies in 5587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049294014 = score(doc=5587,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 5587, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5587)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to clarify earlier work on journal diffusion metrics. Classical journal indicators such as the Garfield impact factor do not measure the breadth of influence across the literature of a particular journal title. As a new approach to measuring research influence, the study complements these existing metrics with a series of formally described diffusion factors. Design/methodology/approach - Using a publication-citation matrix as an organising construct, the paper develops formal descriptions of two forms of diffusion metric: "relative diffusion factors" and "journal diffusion factors" in both their synchronous and diachronous forms. It also provides worked examples for selected library and information science and economics journals, plus a sample of health information papers to illustrate their construction and use. Findings - Diffusion factors capture different aspects of the citation reception process than existing bibliometric measures. The paper shows that diffusion factors can be applied at the whole journal level or for sets of articles and that they provide a richer evidence base for citation analyses than traditional measures alone. Research limitations/implications - The focus of this paper is on clarifying the concepts underlying diffusion factors and there is unlimited scope for further work to apply these metrics to much larger and more comprehensive data sets than has been attempted here. Practical implications - These new tools extend the range of tools available for bibliometric, and possibly webometric, analysis. Diffusion factors might find particular application in studies where the research questions focus on the dynamic aspects of innovation and knowledge transfer. Originality/value - This paper will be of interest to those with theoretical interests in informetric distributions as well as those interested in science policy and innovation studies.

0.006099823 = product of:
  0.048798583 = sum of:
    0.048798583 = weight(_text_:studies in 4391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048798583 = score(doc=4391,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30860704 = fieldWeight in 4391, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4391)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Bibliographic databases (including databases based on open access) are routinely used for bibliometric research. The value of a specific database depends to a large extent on the coverage of the discipline(s) under study. A number of studies have determined the coverage of databases in specific disciplines focusing on interdisciplinary differences; however, little is known about the potential existence of intradisciplinary differences in database coverage. Focusing on intradisciplinary differences, the article documents large database-coverage differences within two disciplines (economics and psychology). The point extends to include both the uneven coverage of specialties and research traditions. The implications for bibliometric research are discussed, and precautions which need to be taken are outlined.

0.004650397 = product of:
  0.037203178 = sum of:
    0.037203178 = product of:
      0.074406356 = sum of:
        0.074406356 = weight(_text_:area in 4962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074406356 = score(doc=4962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.38107216 = fieldWeight in 4962, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This article reports the findings of a bibliometric study of the measurable effects of experience and prestige on researchers' citing behavior. All single authors from two econometrics journals over a 10-year time period form the basis of the analysis of how experience and prestige affect the number of references in their publications. Preliminary results from linear regression models suggest that two author types can be characterized using this analysis. Review experience seems to be the decisive factor in the data. The article discusses the implications of the findings and offers suggestions for future research within this new and promising area.

0.0020133762 = product of:
  0.01610701 = sum of:
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2757, 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=2757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:59:25