Search (166 results, page 1 of 9)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013) 0.17 
    0.1707525 = product of:
  0.51225746 = sum of:
    0.25612873 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25612873 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34179783 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.25612873 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25612873 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34179783 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Content
    Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
  2. Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015) 0.03 
    0.033980757 = product of:
  0.10194227 = sum of:
    0.08263036 = weight(_text_:europe in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08263036 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.019311916 = product of:
      0.038623832 = sum of:
        0.038623832 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038623832 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, 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=2590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    17. 9.2018 18:22:23
  3. Neth, M.: Citation analysis and the Web (1998) 0.02 
    0.022234585 = product of:
  0.06670375 = sum of:
    0.047585927 = weight(_text_:libraries in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047585927 = score(doc=108,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = 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)
    0.019117821 = product of:
      0.038235642 = sum of:
        0.038235642 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038235642 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  4. Pichappan, P.; Sangaranachiyar, S.: Ageing approach to scientific eponyms (1996) 0.02 
    0.020101393 = product of:
  0.060304176 = sum of:
    0.038455237 = weight(_text_:libraries in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038455237 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = 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)
    0.02184894 = product of:
      0.04369788 = sum of:
        0.04369788 = weight(_text_:22 in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04369788 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  5. Mommoh, O.M.: Subject analysis of post-graduate theses in library, archival and information science at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (1995/96) 0.02 
    0.020101393 = product of:
  0.060304176 = sum of:
    0.038455237 = weight(_text_:libraries in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038455237 = score(doc=673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = 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)
    0.02184894 = product of:
      0.04369788 = sum of:
        0.04369788 = weight(_text_:22 in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04369788 = score(doc=673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  6. Rodríguez-Navarro, A.: Research assessment based on infrequent achievements : a comparison of the United States and Europe in terms of highly cited papers and Nobel Prizes (2016) 0.02 
    0.019476164 = product of:
  0.11685698 = sum of:
    0.11685698 = weight(_text_:europe in 2780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11685698 = score(doc=2780,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.47586602 = fieldWeight in 2780, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2780)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Scientific progress is driven by important, infrequent discoveries that cannot be readily identified and quantified, which makes research assessment very difficult. Bibliometric indicators of important discoveries have been formulated using an empirical approach, based on the mathematical properties of the high-citation tail of the citation distribution. To investigate the theoretical basis of such formulations this study compares the US/European research performance ratios expressed in terms of highly cited papers and Nobel Prize-winning discoveries. The research performance ratio in terms of papers was studied from the citation distributions in the fields of chemistry, physics, and biochemistry and molecular biology. It varied as a function of the citation level. Selecting an appropriate high citation level, the ratios in terms of highly cited papers were compared with the corresponding ratios for Nobel Prize-winning discoveries in Chemistry, Physics, and Physiology or Medicine. Research performance ratios expressed in terms of highly cited papers and Nobel Prize-winning discoveries are reasonably similar, and suggest that the research success of the United States is almost 3 times that of Europe. A similar conclusion was obtained using articles published in Nature and Science.
  7. Siddiqui, M.A.: ¬A bibliometric study of authorship characteristics in four international information science journals (1997) 0.02 
    0.019058215 = product of:
  0.05717464 = sum of:
    0.04078794 = weight(_text_:libraries in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04078794 = score(doc=853,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = 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)
    0.016386703 = product of:
      0.032773405 = sum of:
        0.032773405 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032773405 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  8. Dalen, H.P. van; Henkens, K.: Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture : a worldwide survey (2012) 0.02 
    0.016526073 = product of:
  0.09915644 = sum of:
    0.09915644 = weight(_text_:europe in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09915644 = score(doc=2299,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.4037857 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    How does publication pressure in modern-day universities affect the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in science? By using a worldwide survey among demographers in developed and developing countries, the authors show that the large majority perceive the publication pressure as high, but more so in Anglo-Saxon countries and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. However, scholars see both the pros (upward mobility) and cons (excessive publication and uncitedness, neglect of policy issues, etc.) of the so-called publish-or-perish culture. By measuring behavior in terms of reading and publishing, and perceived extrinsic rewards and stated intrinsic rewards of practicing science, it turns out that publication pressure negatively affects the orientation of demographers towards policy and knowledge sharing. There are no signs that the pressure affects reading and publishing outside the core discipline.
  9. Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.-D.: What is behind the curtain of the Leiden Ranking? (2015) 0.02 
    0.016526073 = product of:
  0.09915644 = sum of:
    0.09915644 = weight(_text_:europe in 2171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09915644 = score(doc=2171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.4037857 = fieldWeight in 2171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2171)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Even with very well-documented rankings of universities, it is difficult for an individual university to reconstruct its position in the ranking. What is the reason behind whether a university places higher or lower in the ranking? Taking the example of ETH Zurich, the aim of this communication is to reconstruct how the high position of ETHZ (in Europe rank no. 1 in PP[top 10%]) in the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) Leiden Ranking 2013 in the field "social sciences, arts and humanities" came about. According to our analyses, the bibliometric indicator values of a university depend very strongly on weights that result in differing estimates of both the total number of a university's publications and the number of publications with a citation impact in the 90th percentile, or PP(top 10%). In addition, we examine the effect of weights at the level of individual publications. Based on the results, we offer recommendations for improving the Leiden Ranking (for example, publication of sample calculations to increase transparency).
  10. Ball, R.: Wissenschaftsindikatoren im Zeitalter digitaler Wissenschaft (2007) 0.02 
    0.015881846 = product of:
  0.047645535 = sum of:
    0.033989947 = weight(_text_:libraries in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033989947 = score(doc=875,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.25664487 = fieldWeight in 875, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=875)
    0.013655587 = product of:
      0.027311174 = sum of:
        0.027311174 = weight(_text_:22 in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027311174 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 875, 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=875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Die Bereitstellung und Nutzung digitaler Bibliotheken entwickelt sich allmählich zum Standard der Literatur und Informationsversorgung in Wissenschaft und Forschung. Ganzen Disziplinen genügt oftmals die verfügbare digitale Information, Printmedien werden besonders im STM-Segment zu einem Nischenprodukt. Digitale Texte können beliebig eingebaut, kopiert und nachgenutzt werden, die Verlinkung zwischen Metadaten und Volltexten bringt weitere Nutzungsvorteile. Dabei sind die Angebote von Digital Libraries Bestandteil eines ganzheitlichen digitalen Ansatzes, wonach die elektronische Informations- und Literaturversorgung integraler Bestandteil von E-Science (Enhanced Science) oder Cyberinfrastructure darstellt. Hierbei verschmelzen dann Produktion, Diskussion, Distribution und Rezeption der wissenschaftlichen Inhalte auf einer einzigen digitalen Plattform. Damit sind dann nicht nur die Literatur- und Informationsversorgung (Digital Libraries), sondern auch die Wissenschaft selbst digital geworden. Diese dramatische Veränderung in der Wissenschaftskommunikation hat direkte Auswirkungen auf die Messung der Wissenschaftskommunikation, also auf die Evaluation von wissenschaftlichem Output. Bisherige Systeme der Wissenschaftsvermessung basieren hauptsächlich auf bibliometrischen Analysen, d.h. der Quantifizierung des Outputs und dessen Rezeption (Zitierhäufigkeit). Basis dafür sind insbesondere im STM-Bereich die international anerkannten Datenbanken des ISI (Thomson Scientific) insbesondere der Science Citation Index, SCI) oder vielleicht zukünftig das Konkurrenzprodukt SCOPUS des Wissenschaftskonzerns Reed Elsevier. Die Digitalisierung der Wissenschaft in ihrem kompletten Lebenszyklus, die zunehmende Nutzung und Akzeptanz von Dokumentenrepositorien, Institutsservern und anderen elektronischen Publikationsformen im Rahmen von E-Science erfordern und ermöglichen zugleich den Nachweis von Output und Rezeption durch neue bibliometrische Formen, etwa der Webometrie (Webmetrics). Im vorliegenden Paper haben wir hierzu Analysen durchgeführt und stellen eine Abschätzung vor, wie sich der Anteil von webometrisch erfassbarer und zugänglicher wissenschaftlicher Literatur im Vergleich zu Literatur, die mit den Standardsystemen nachgewiesen werden kann im Laufe der letzten Jahre verändert hat. Dabei haben wir unterschiedliche Disziplinen und Länder berücksichtigt. Zudem wird ein Vergleich der webometrischen Nachweisqualität so unterschiedlicher Systeme wie SCI, SCOPUS und Google Scholar vorgestellt.
    Date
    23.12.2007 19:22:21
  11. Kreider, J.: ¬The correlation of local citation data with citation data from Journal Citation Reports (1999) 0.02 
    0.015076044 = product of:
  0.04522813 = sum of:
    0.028841427 = weight(_text_:libraries in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028841427 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = 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)
    0.016386703 = product of:
      0.032773405 = sum of:
        0.032773405 = weight(_text_:22 in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032773405 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  12. Haycock, L.A.: Citation analysis of education dissertations for collection development (2004) 0.02 
    0.015076044 = product of:
  0.04522813 = sum of:
    0.028841427 = weight(_text_:libraries in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028841427 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 135, 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=135)
    0.016386703 = product of:
      0.032773405 = sum of:
        0.032773405 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032773405 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, 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=135)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    The reference lists of forty-three education dissertations on curriculum and instruction completed at the University of Minnesota during the calendar years 2000-2002 were analyzed to inform collection development. As one measure of use of the academic library collection, the citation analysis yielded data to guide journal selection, retention, and cancellation decisions. The project aimed to ensure that the most frequently cited journals were retained on subscription. The serial monograph ratio for citation also was evaluated in comparison with other studies and explored in the context of funding ratios. Results of citation studies can provide a basis for liaison conversations with faculty in addition to guiding selection decisions. This research project can serve as a model for similar projects in other libraries that look at literature in education as well as other fields.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  13. Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.02 
    0.015076044 = product of:
  0.04522813 = sum of:
    0.028841427 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028841427 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
    0.016386703 = product of:
      0.032773405 = sum of:
        0.032773405 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032773405 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Counts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.
    Date
    28. 7.2018 10:00:22
  14. Sin, S.-C.J.: International coauthorship and citation impact : a bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980-2008 (2011) 0.01 
    0.013771727 = product of:
  0.08263036 = sum of:
    0.08263036 = weight(_text_:europe in 4753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08263036 = score(doc=4753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 4753, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4753)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    International collaborative papers are increasingly common in journals of many disciplines. These types of papers are often cited more frequently. To identify the coauthorship trends within Library and Information Science (LIS), this study analyzed 7,489 papers published in six leading publications (ARIST, IP&M, JAMIA, JASIST, MISQ, and Scientometrics) over the last three decades. Logistic regression tested the relationships between citations received and seven factors: authorship type, author's subregion, country income level, publication year, number of authors, document type, and journal title. The main authorship type since 1995 was national collaboration. It was also the dominant type for all publications studied except ARIST, and for all regions except Africa. For citation counts, the logistic regression analysis found all seven factors were significant. Papers that included international collaboration, Northern European authors, and authors in high-income nations had higher odds of being cited more. Papers from East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Southern Europe had lower odds than North American papers. As discussed in the bibliometric literature, Merton's Matthew Effect sheds light on the differential citation counts based on the authors' subregion. This researcher proposes geographies of invisible colleagues and a geographic scope effect to further investigate the relationships between author geographic affiliation and citation impact.
  15. Zuccala, A.; Guns, R.; Cornacchia, R.; Bod, R.: Can we rank scholarly book publishers? : a bibliometric experiment with the field of history (2015) 0.01 
    0.013771727 = product of:
  0.08263036 = sum of:
    0.08263036 = weight(_text_:europe in 2037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08263036 = score(doc=2037,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 2037, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2037)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    This is a publisher ranking study based on a citation data grant from Elsevier, specifically, book titles cited in Scopus history journals (2007-2011) and matching metadata from WorldCat® (i.e., OCLC numbers, ISBN codes, publisher records, and library holding counts). Using both resources, we have created a unique relational database designed to compare citation counts to books with international library holdings or libcitations for scholarly book publishers. First, we construct a ranking of the top 500 publishers and explore descriptive statistics at the level of publisher type (university, commercial, other) and country of origin. We then identify the top 50 university presses and commercial houses based on total citations and mean citations per book (CPB). In a third analysis, we present a map of directed citation links between journals and book publishers. American and British presses/publishing houses tend to dominate the work of library collection managers and citing scholars; however, a number of specialist publishers from Europe are included. Distinct clusters from the directed citation map indicate a certain degree of regionalism and subject specialization, where some journals produced in languages other than English tend to cite books published by the same parent press. Bibliometric rankings convey only a small part of how the actual structure of the publishing field has evolved; hence, challenges lie ahead for developers of new citation indices for books and bibliometricians interested in measuring book and publisher impacts.
  16. Kulczycki, E.; Huang, Y.; Zuccala, A.A.; Engels, T.C.E.; Ferrara, A.; Guns, R.; Pölönen, J.; Sivertsen, G.; Taskin, Z.; Zhang, L.: Uses of the Journal Impact Factor in national journal rankings in China and Europe (2022) 0.01 
    0.013771727 = product of:
  0.08263036 = sum of:
    0.08263036 = weight(_text_:europe in 769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08263036 = score(doc=769,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 769, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=769)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  17. Kozlowski, D.; Andersen, J.P.; Larivière, V.: ¬The decrease in uncited articles and its effect on the concentration of citations (2024) 0.01 
    0.013771727 = product of:
  0.08263036 = sum of:
    0.08263036 = weight(_text_:europe in 1208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08263036 = score(doc=1208,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24556698 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 1208, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1208)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Empirical evidence demonstrates that citations received by scholarly publications follow a pattern of preferential attachment, resulting in a power-law distribution. Such asymmetry has sparked significant debate regarding the use of citations for research evaluation. However, a consensus has yet to be established concerning the historical trends in citation concentration. Are citations becoming more concentrated in a small number of articles? Or have recent geopolitical and technical changes in science led to more decentralized distributions? This ongoing debate stems from a lack of technical clarity in measuring inequality. Given the variations in citation practices across disciplines and over time, it is crucial to account for multiple factors that can influence the findings. This article explores how reference-based and citation-based approaches, uncited articles, citation inflation, the expansion of bibliometric databases, disciplinary differences, and self-citations affect the evolution of citation concentration. Our results indicate a decreasing trend in citation concentration, primarily driven by a decline in uncited articles, which, in turn, can be attributed to the growing significance of Asia and Europe. On the whole, our findings clarify current debates on citation concentration and show that, contrary to a widely-held belief, citations are increasingly scattered.
  18. Heruble, J.P.V.M.: Historical bibliometrics : its purpose and significance to the history of disciplines (1999) 0.01 
    0.0112161115 = product of:
  0.06729667 = sum of:
    0.06729667 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06729667 = score(doc=2151,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.50813097 = fieldWeight in 2151, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2151)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Libraries and culture. 34(1999) no.4, S.380-388
  19. Torres-Salinas, D.; Gorraiz, J.; Robinson-Garcia, N.: ¬The insoluble problems of books : what does Altmetric.com have to offer? (2018) 0.01 
    0.010050696 = product of:
  0.030152088 = sum of:
    0.019227618 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019227618 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.14518027 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.01092447 = product of:
      0.02184894 = sum of:
        0.02184894 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02184894 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Findings Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools. Practical implications This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com's functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  20. Klein, G.M.: Is there a standard default keyword operator? : a bibliometric analysis of processing options chosen by libraries to execute keyword searches in online public access catalogs (1994) 0.01 
    0.009063987 = product of:
  0.05438392 = sum of:
    0.05438392 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05438392 = score(doc=2200,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.4106318 = fieldWeight in 2200, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2200)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a survey in which the OPACs of 67 US libraries were searched using Internet connections to determine the positional operators (AND, SAME, WITH, NEAR, ADJ) selected as the default keyword operator on each catalogue. Results indicated that there is no standard positional operator

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 156
  • d 9
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 163
  • el 4
  • m 3
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications