Search (53 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Zhang, Y.: ¬The impact of Internet-based electronic resources on formal scholarly communication in the area of library and information science : a citation analysis (1998) 0.07 
    0.07136071 = product of:
  0.19029522 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=2808,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=2808,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
    0.11312637 = sum of:
      0.07516178 = weight(_text_:area in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07516178 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03962768 = queryNorm
          0.38494104 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
      0.037964586 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037964586 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03962768 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Internet based electronic resources are growing dramatically but there have been no empirical studies evaluating the impact of e-sources, as a whole, on formal scholarly communication. reports results of an investigation into how much e-sources have been used in formal scholarly communication, using a case study in the area of Library and Information Science (LIS) during the period 1994 to 1996. 4 citation based indicators were used in the study of the impact measurement. Concludes that, compared with the impact of print sources, the impact of e-sources on formal scholarly communication in LIS is small, as measured by e-sources cited, and does not increase significantly by year even though there is observable growth of these impact across the years. It is found that periodical format is related to the rate of citing e-sources, articles are more likely to cite e-sources than are print priodical articles. However, once authors cite electronic resource, there is no significant difference in the number of references per article by periodical format or by year. Suggests that, at this stage, citing e-sources may depend on authors rather than the periodical format in which authors choose to publish
    Date
    30. 1.1999 17:22:22
  2. Schwartz, C.A.: ¬The rise and fall of uncitedness (1997) 0.05 
    0.049516745 = product of:
  0.13204466 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 7658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=7658,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 7658, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7658)
    0.071807064 = weight(_text_:case in 7658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071807064 = score(doc=7658,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 7658, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7658)
    0.031888437 = product of:
      0.06377687 = sum of:
        0.06377687 = weight(_text_:area in 7658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06377687 = score(doc=7658,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.32663327 = fieldWeight in 7658, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7658)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Large scale uncitedness refers to the significant proportion of articles that do not receive a single citation within 5 years of publication. Notes the brief and troubled history of this area of inquiry, which was prone to miscalculation, misinterpretation, and politicization. Reassesses large scale uncitedness as both a general phenomenon in the scholarly communication system (with data for the physical sciences, social sciences and humanities) and a case study of library and information science, where its rate was reported to be 72%. The study was in 4 parts: examination of the problem of disaggregation in the study of uncitedness; review of the reaction of the popular press and scholars to uncitedness; a case study of uncitedness in C&RL; and a brief summary with suggestions for further research. Data disaggregation was found to be essential in interpreting citation data from tools such as Science Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index; which do not differentiate between articles and marginal materials (book reviews, letters, obituaries). Stresses the dangers of conclusions from uncitedness data
    Source
    College and research libraries. 58(1997) no.1, S.19-29
  3. Egghe, L.: On the law of Zipf-Mandelbrot for multi-word phrases (1999) 0.04 
    0.043257564 = product of:
  0.17303026 = sum of:
    0.11726044 = weight(_text_:case in 3058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726044 = score(doc=3058,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.6730608 = fieldWeight in 3058, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3058)
    0.055769812 = weight(_text_:studies in 3058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055769812 = score(doc=3058,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35269377 = fieldWeight in 3058, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3058)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This article studies the probabilities of the occurence of multi-word (m-word) phrases (m=2,3,...) in relation to the probabilities of occurence of the single words. It is well known that, in the latter case, the lae of Zipf is valid (i.e., a power law). We prove that in the case of m-word phrases (m>=2), this is not the case. We present 2 independent proof of this
  4. Mommoh, O.M.: Subject analysis of post-graduate theses in library, archival and information science at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (1995/96) 0.04 
    0.041446682 = product of:
  0.16578673 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 673, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=673)
    0.12798786 = sum of:
      0.08503584 = weight(_text_:area in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08503584 = score(doc=673,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03962768 = queryNorm
          0.43551105 = fieldWeight in 673, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=673)
      0.042952027 = weight(_text_:22 in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042952027 = score(doc=673,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03962768 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 673, 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=673)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a bibliometric study of 111 theses accepted by the Department of Library and Information Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria, between 1977 and 1992. The analysis was based on year, type and degree awarded, subject, type of library and geographical area. Concludes that the highest number of submissions was 1991, when 108 MLS theses (97,29%) and 3 PhD theses (2,71%) were accepted. Libraries and readers was the most concetrated subject while the academic library was the most discussed type of library
    Source
    Library focus. 13/14(1995/96), S.22-25
  5. Ngah, Z.A.; Sze, G.S.: Information needs and use of humanities researchers : a bibliometric analysis and review of literature (1997) 0.04 
    0.036888186 = product of:
  0.14755274 = sum of:
    0.10245568 = weight(_text_:studies in 355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10245568 = score(doc=355,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.6479398 = fieldWeight in 355, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=355)
    0.045097064 = product of:
      0.09019413 = sum of:
        0.09019413 = weight(_text_:area in 355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09019413 = score(doc=355,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.46192923 = fieldWeight in 355, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=355)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Presents a quantitative anaylsis of 100 references retrieved on the information use and needs of humanities researchers, consisting of journal articles (57%), dissertations (26%), conference proceedings (11%) and books (6%). 3 journal titles were found to contribute more than a third of the articles on this subject. About 88% (23) of the dissertations are doctoral theses submitted to universities in the USA. about 51% of the retrieved items were published between 1980-1989 which form the peak of studies in this area and the situation stabilizes to an average of about 2 studies a year in the post 1990 years. The bulk of the studies is about characteirstics of information sources used and of these citation studies are predominant. Information needs and use in the field of literature, history and music (62%, 41) constitute the majority of studies in this area. The review studies come under 3 categories; the library and humanities scholars; research and information seeking behaviour of the humanities researchers and the characteristics of sources used
  6. Joshi, A.N.; Maheshwarappa, B.S.: Studies in scientific productivity : a review of literature (1996) 0.03 
    0.030431202 = product of:
  0.12172481 = sum of:
    0.08452163 = weight(_text_:studies in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08452163 = score(doc=405,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.53452307 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
    0.037203178 = product of:
      0.074406356 = sum of:
        0.074406356 = weight(_text_:area in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074406356 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.38107216 = fieldWeight in 405, 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=405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Refers to the many changes in the research process in the post Second World War period, including the increased involvement of government and industry in establishing R&D laboratories, and by way of grant to universities. Discusses concepts, types, and problems in measuring scientific productivity, reviewing studies since 1926. Examines theoretical developments in relation to the frequency distribution of Lotka's Law of Scientific Productivity. The various studies are mainly non-comparable and inconclusive owing to substantial differences in the analytical methods applied. Poits out the need for methodological standardisation and coordination of research efforts in this area through empirical validation and generalisation of bibliometric models
  7. Alger, J.: Can RANK be used to generate a reliable author list for cocitation studies? (1996) 0.03 
    0.025199067 = product of:
  0.10079627 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 7171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=7171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 7171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7171)
    0.07244711 = weight(_text_:studies in 7171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07244711 = score(doc=7171,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.45816267 = fieldWeight in 7171, 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=7171)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study, conducted at Kansas State University Library, to investigate the possibility of using DIALOG's RANK command to generate lists of prominent authors for use in cocitation studies. The emerging and rapidly expanding field of biodiversity was chosen and an online search of SCISEARCH (DIALOG File 34) was conducted to generate a list of potential authors to be used in the study. The RANK command was used to generate a ranked list of those authors cited in the retrieved documents. Results indicate that RANK does not effectively retrieve a quality set of prominent authors for use in cocitation studies. Highly cited authors of general texts of biodiversity cause the derived author map to present a misaligned picture of specialization within the field. Concludes that, by limiting citations to periodical articles only, a clearer and more accurate picture of the field should emerge
    Source
    College and research libraries news. 57(1996) no.6, S.567-574
  8. Oppenheim, C.: Do citations count? : Citation indexing and the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) (1996) 0.02 
    0.02339217 = product of:
  0.09356868 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 6673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=6673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 6673, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6673)
    0.055769812 = weight(_text_:studies in 6673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055769812 = score(doc=6673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35269377 = fieldWeight in 6673, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6673)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Citations are used to illustrate or elaborate on a point, or to criticize. Citation studies, based on ISI's citation indexes, can help evaluate scientific research, while impact factors aid libraries in deciding which journals to cancel or purchase. Suggests that citiation counts can replace the costly RAE in assessing the research output of university departments
  9. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996) 0.02 
    0.021978518 = product of:
  0.08791407 = sum of:
    0.071807064 = weight(_text_:case in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071807064 = score(doc=7659,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
  10. Snyder, H.; Cronin, B.; Davenport, E.: What's the use of citation? : Citation analysis as a literature topic in selected disciplines of the social sciences (1995) 0.02 
    0.021875493 = product of:
  0.08750197 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=1825,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
    0.05915282 = weight(_text_:studies in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05915282 = score(doc=1825,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 1825, 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=1825)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions
  11. Neth, M.: Citation analysis and the Web (1998) 0.02 
    0.016391305 = product of:
  0.06556522 = sum of:
    0.04677371 = weight(_text_:libraries in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04677371 = score(doc=108,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
    0.018791512 = product of:
      0.037583023 = sum of:
        0.037583023 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037583023 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 108, 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=108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Citation analysis has long been used by librarians as an important tool of collection development and the advent of Internet technology and especially the WWW adds a new facet to the role played by citation analysis. One of the reasons why librarians create WWW homepages is to provide users with further sources of interest or reference and to do this libraries include links from their own homepages to other information sources. Reports current research on the analysis of WWW pages as an introduction to an examination of the homepages of 25 art libraries to determine what sites are most often included. The types of linked sites are analyzed based on 3 criteria: location, focus and evidence that the link was evaluated before the connection was establisheds
    Date
    10. 1.1999 16:22:37
  12. Pichappan, P.; Sangaranachiyar, S.: Ageing approach to scientific eponyms (1996) 0.01 
    0.0148187205 = product of:
  0.059274882 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
    0.021476014 = product of:
      0.042952027 = sum of:
        0.042952027 = weight(_text_:22 in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042952027 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 80, 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=80)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Footnote
    Report presented at the 16th National Indian Association of Special Libraries and Information Centres Seminar Special Interest Group Meeting on Informatrics in Bombay, 19-22 Dec 94
  13. Meyer, T.; Spencer, J.: ¬A citation analysis study of library science : who cites librarians? (1996) 0.01 
    0.014620107 = product of:
  0.058480427 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=5502,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 5502, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5502)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 5502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=5502,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 5502, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5502)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study to determine if practitioners of disciplines outside library and information science read and cite articles from the LIS literature. Research shows that disciplines citing library science articles include computer science, medicine, psychology, the social sciences, and general sciences. The methodology involved using the citation index: Social SciSearch on Dialog; to analyze citations to library science periodicals over a 20 year period. Non library science fields or disciplines that cited articles published in the library journals included in this study were identified by using the periodicals subject categories on Dialog. 85.000 articles were identified within the LIS subject category. Use of the Expand command for periodical titles in the cited works field ensured the maximum set of cited works possible for each periodical. All cited references, whose subject category was LIS, were removed to leave a set of articles cited by authors in non LIS disciplines. These were ranked using the Rank command on Dialog. Although citations from other fields are higher than previous studies indicate, comparison with other fields in the social sciences shows that library science is not commanding citations at the level of the more developed fields
    Source
    College and research libraries. 57(1996) no.1, S.23-33
  14. Siddiqui, M.A.: ¬A bibliometric study of authorship characteristics in four international information science journals (1997) 0.01 
    0.01404969 = product of:
  0.05619876 = sum of:
    0.040091753 = weight(_text_:libraries in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040091753 = score(doc=853,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30797386 = fieldWeight in 853, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=853)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 853, 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=853)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a bibliometric study of the authorship characteristics of articles published in 4 major information science periodicals: JASIS, Information technology and libraries, Journal of information science, and Program. The aim was to determine the details of their authors, such as: sex, occupation, affiliation, geographic distribution, and institutional affiliation. A total of 163 articles published in 1993 and written by 294 authors were analyzed. Results indicate that: men (206 or 70%) publish 3.0 times more articles than women (69 or 23,5%). Schools of library and information science contributed the most authors. The majority of authors came from the USA (148 or 50,3%), with the Midwest region claiming the largest share (110 or 25,0%). Academic libraries (110 or 37,4%) account for the major share of library publication. 12 schools of library and information science, in the USA, contributed 32 authors (50,0%) and assistant professors (25 or 39,1%) publish the most in these library schools. Male school of library and information science authors publish 1,6 times more than their female counterparts
    Source
    International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.3-23
  15. Pillai, C.V.R.; Girijakumari, S.: Widening horizons of informetrics (1996) 0.01 
    0.012074519 = product of:
  0.09659615 = sum of:
    0.09659615 = weight(_text_:studies in 7172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09659615 = score(doc=7172,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.61088353 = fieldWeight in 7172, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7172)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Traces the origin and development of informetrics in the field of library and information science. 'Informatrics' is seen as a generic term to denote studies in which quantitative methods are applied. Discusses various applications of informetrics including citation analysis; impact factor; absolescence and ageing studies; bibliographic coupling; co-citation; and measurement of information such as retrieval performance assessment. Outlines recent developments in informetrics and calls for attention to be paid to the quality of future research in the field to ensure its reliability
    Source
    Library science with a slant to documentation and information studies. 33(1996) no.1, S.39-43
  16. Wormell, I.: Online searching is like gold-washing (1998) 0.01 
    0.012074519 = product of:
  0.09659615 = sum of:
    0.09659615 = weight(_text_:studies in 3361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09659615 = score(doc=3361,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.61088353 = fieldWeight in 3361, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3361)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Draws attention to the vast potential of online information databases and to the many new possibilities which advanced search techniques offer those who want to explore databases. Looks at informetrics, an emerging subfield in information science, which is based on the combination of advanced information retrieval and quantitative studies of information flow. Describes 3 studies carried out at the Centre for Information studies at the Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen, Denmark, to illustrate the scope and nature of informetric analysis
  17. Kreider, J.: ¬The correlation of local citation data with citation data from Journal Citation Reports (1999) 0.01 
    0.01111404 = product of:
  0.04445616 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 102, 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=102)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    University librarians continue to face the difficult task of determining which journals remain crucial for their collections during these times of static financial resources and escalating journal costs. One evaluative tool, Journal Citation Reports (JCR), recently has become available on CD-ROM, making it simpler for librarians to use its citation data as input for ranking journals. But many librarians remain unconvinced that the global citation data from the JCR bears enough correspondence to their local situation to be useful. In this project, I explore the correlation between global citation data available from JCR with local citation data generated specifically for the University of British Columbia, for 20 subject fields in the sciences and social sciences. The significant correlations obtained in this study suggest that large research-oriented university libraries could consider substituting global citation data for local citation data when evaluating their journals, with certain cautions.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  18. Gomez, I.: Coping with the problem of subject classification diversity (1996) 0.01 
    0.010565204 = product of:
  0.08452163 = sum of:
    0.08452163 = weight(_text_:studies in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08452163 = score(doc=5074,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.53452307 = fieldWeight in 5074, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5074)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    The delimination of a research field in bibliometric studies presents the problem of the diversity of subject classifications used in the sources of input and output data. Classification of documents according the thematic codes or keywords is the most accurate method, mainly used is specialized bibliographic or patent databases. Classification of journals in disciplines presents lower specifity, and some shortcomings as the change over time of both journals and disciplines and the increasing interdisciplinarity of research. Standardization of subject classifications emerges as an important point in bibliometric studies in order to allow international comparisons, although flexibility is needed to meet the needs of local studies
  19. Rao, I.K.R.: Methodological and conceptual questions of bibliometric standards (1996) 0.01 
    0.009858803 = product of:
  0.07887042 = sum of:
    0.07887042 = weight(_text_:studies in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07887042 = score(doc=5071,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4987843 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    Abstract
    Bibliometric studies are mostly empirical in nature and they are mostly centred around the presentation of facts and data. The facts are gathered either through surveys or from published bibliographies, indexes and databases. Based on these facts, empirical models and principles are being developed. Normative principles and standards have to evolve from the logical analysis of the empirical models. The stage is set to integrate empirical models of bibliometrics into standards. Future bibliometric studies have to address this issue and reach the stage of normative principles
  20. Buchanan, A.L.; Herubel, J.-P.V.M.: Disciplinary culture, bibliometrics, and historical studies : preliminary observations (1997) 0.01 
    0.009858803 = product of:
  0.07887042 = sum of:
    0.07887042 = weight(_text_:studies in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07887042 = score(doc=407,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4987843 = fieldWeight in 407, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=407)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
    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

Authors

Languages

  • e 51
  • dk 1
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 51
  • m 2
  • More… Less…

Themes