Search (1135 results, page 1 of 57)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013) 0.08 
    0.07504265 = product of:
  0.3001706 = sum of:
    0.3001706 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3001706 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4005707 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
  2. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.07 
    0.0736098 = product of:
  0.1472196 = sum of:
    0.071168706 = weight(_text_:management in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071168706 = score(doc=994,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.44688427 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.07605089 = sum of:
      0.03764203 = weight(_text_:science in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03764203 = score(doc=994,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
      0.038408864 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038408864 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
    Source
    Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.6, S.1451-1464
  3. Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986) 0.07 
    0.07305171 = product of:
  0.14610343 = sum of:
    0.09489161 = weight(_text_:management in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09489161 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.5958457 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
    0.051211823 = product of:
      0.102423646 = sum of:
        0.102423646 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102423646 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
  4. Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015) 0.06 
    0.056406997 = product of:
  0.112813994 = sum of:
    0.041936565 = weight(_text_:management in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041936565 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.07087743 = sum of:
      0.025612153 = weight(_text_:science in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025612153 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
      0.045265283 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045265283 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = 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(2/4)
    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
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.1, S.27-54
  5. Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014) 0.05 
    0.047862925 = product of:
  0.09572585 = sum of:
    0.035584353 = weight(_text_:management in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035584353 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
    0.060141496 = sum of:
      0.021732632 = weight(_text_:science in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021732632 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
      0.038408864 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038408864 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Patent analysis has become important for management as it offers timely and valuable information to evaluate R&D performance and identify the prospects of patents. This study explores the scattering patterns of patent impact based on citations in 3 distinct technological areas, the liquid crystal, semiconductor, and drug technological areas, to identify the core patents in each area. The research follows the approach from Bradford's law, which equally divides total citations into 3 zones. While the result suggests that the scattering of patent citations corresponded with features of Bradford's law, the proportion of patents in the 3 zones did not match the proportion as proposed by the law. As a result, the study shows that the distributions of citations in all 3 areas were more concentrated than what Bradford's law proposed. The Groos (1967) droop was also presented by the scattering of patent citations, and the growth rate of cumulative citation decreased in the third zone.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:11:29
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1917-1928
  6. Liu, D.-R.; Shih, M.-J.: Hybrid-patent classification based on patent-network analysis (2011) 0.05 
    0.046027243 = product of:
  0.09205449 = sum of:
    0.041936565 = weight(_text_:management in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041936565 = score(doc=4189,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
    0.050117917 = sum of:
      0.018110527 = weight(_text_:science in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018110527 = score(doc=4189,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4189, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4189)
      0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03200739 = score(doc=4189,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4189, 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=4189)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Effective patent management is essential for organizations to maintain their competitive advantage. The classification of patents is a critical part of patent management and industrial analysis. This study proposes a hybrid-patent-classification approach that combines a novel patent-network-based classification method with three conventional classification methods to analyze query patents and predict their classes. The novel patent network contains various types of nodes that represent different features extracted from patent documents. The nodes are connected based on the relationship metrics derived from the patent metadata. The proposed classification method predicts a query patent's class by analyzing all reachable nodes in the patent network and calculating their relevance to the query patent. It then classifies the query patent with a modified k-nearest neighbor classifier. To further improve the approach, we combine it with content-based, citation-based, and metadata-based classification methods to develop a hybrid-classification approach. We evaluate the performance of the hybrid approach on a test dataset of patent documents obtained from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and compare its performance with that of the three conventional methods. The results demonstrate that the proposed patent-network-based approach yields more accurate class predictions than the patent network-based approach.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:04:21
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.246-256
  7. Costas, R.; Zahedi, Z.; Wouters, P.: ¬The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media : large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations (2015) 0.04 
    0.043636583 = product of:
  0.087273166 = sum of:
    0.029653627 = weight(_text_:management in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029653627 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
    0.057619542 = sum of:
      0.025612153 = weight(_text_:science in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025612153 = score(doc=2598,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03200739 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.3, S.260 - 288
  8. Wang, S.; Ma, Y.; Mao, J.; Bai, Y.; Liang, Z.; Li, G.: Quantifying scientific breakthroughs by a novel disruption indicator based on knowledge entities : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023) 0.04 
    0.043636583 = product of:
  0.087273166 = sum of:
    0.029653627 = weight(_text_:management in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029653627 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
    0.057619542 = sum of:
      0.025612153 = weight(_text_:science in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025612153 = score(doc=882,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
      0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03200739 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 882, 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=882)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Compared to previous studies that generally detect scientific breakthroughs based on citation patterns, this article proposes a knowledge entity-based disruption indicator by quantifying the change of knowledge directly created and inspired by scientific breakthroughs to their evolutionary trajectories. Two groups of analytic units, including MeSH terms and their co-occurrences, are employed independently by the indicator to measure the change of knowledge. The effectiveness of the proposed indicators was evaluated against the four datasets of scientific breakthroughs derived from four recognition trials. In terms of identifying scientific breakthroughs, the proposed disruption indicator based on MeSH co-occurrences outperforms that based on MeSH terms and three earlier citation-based disruption indicators. It is also shown that in our indicator, measuring the change of knowledge inspired by the focal paper in its evolutionary trajectory is a larger contributor than measuring the change created by the focal paper. Our study not only offers empirical insights into conceptual understanding of scientific breakthroughs but also provides practical disruption indicator for scientists and science management agencies searching for valuable research.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:37:33
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.150-167
  9. Ronda-Pupo, G.A.; Katz, J.S.: ¬The power-law relationship between citation-based performance and collaboration in articles in management journals : a scale-independent approach scale-independent approach (2016) 0.04 
    0.043268 = product of:
  0.086536 = sum of:
    0.071168706 = weight(_text_:management in 3127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071168706 = score(doc=3127,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.44688427 = fieldWeight in 3127, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3127)
    0.015367293 = product of:
      0.030734586 = sum of:
        0.030734586 = weight(_text_:science in 3127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030734586 = score(doc=3127,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 3127, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The objective of this article is to determine if academic collaboration is associated with the citation-based performance of articles that are published in management journals. We analyzed 127,812 articles published between 1988 and 2013 in 173 journals on the ISI Web of Science in the "management" category. Collaboration occurred in approximately 60% of all articles. A power-law relationship was found between citation-based performance and journal size and collaboration patterns. The number of citations expected by collaborative articles increases 21.89 or 3.7 times when the number of collaborative articles published in a journal doubles. The number of citations expected by noncollaborative articles only increases 21.35 or 2.55 times if a journal publishes double the number of noncollaborative articles. The Matthew effect is stronger for collaborative than for noncollaborative articles. Scale-independent indicators increase the confidence in the evaluation of the impact of the articles published in management journals.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.10, S.2565-2572
  10. Serenko, A.; Bontis, N.: ¬A critical evaluation of expert survey-based journal rankings : the role of personal research interests (2018) 0.04 
    0.04101751 = product of:
  0.08203502 = sum of:
    0.071168706 = weight(_text_:management in 4228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071168706 = score(doc=4228,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.44688427 = fieldWeight in 4228, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4228)
    0.010866316 = product of:
      0.021732632 = sum of:
        0.021732632 = weight(_text_:science in 4228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021732632 = score(doc=4228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 4228, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    By using the data from two recent survey-based rankings of knowledge management / intellectual capital and eHealth journals, this study tests the impact of personal research interests of journal raters on their ranking scores. The rationale is that raters assign higher scores to journals that cater to their area of expertise because they are more familiar with them. The results indicate the existence of raters' bias toward the journals focusing on their preferred areas of interest, but this bias does not uniformly apply across all research topics. In some subdomains, such as intellectual capital, this bias may be very strong, whereas in others, such as soft-side knowledge management research, it may be nonexistent. Although management eHealth researchers rate management-focused journals higher than their clinical-centered counterparts, this bias does not exist among scholars favoring clinical topics. While this limitation is not fatal, the results from expert-survey journal ranking studies should be interpreted with caution.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.5, S.749-752
  11. Falkingham, L.T.; Reeves, R.: Context analysis : a technique for analysing research in a field, applied to literature on the management of R&D at the section level (1998) 0.04 
    0.04055818 = product of:
  0.08111636 = sum of:
    0.05871119 = weight(_text_:management in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05871119 = score(doc=3689,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.36866072 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
    0.022405172 = product of:
      0.044810344 = sum of:
        0.044810344 = weight(_text_:22 in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044810344 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3689, 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=3689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Context analysis is a new method for appraising a body of publications. the process consists of creating a database of attributes assigned to each paper by the reviewer and then looking for interesting relationships in the data. Assigning the attributes requires an understanding of the subject matter of the papers. Presents findings about one particular research field, Management of R&D at the Section Level. The findings support the view that this body of academic publications does not meet the needs of practitioner R&D managers. Discusses practical aspects of how to apply the method in other fields
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:18:46
  12. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.04 
    0.04009433 = product of:
  0.16037732 = sum of:
    0.16037732 = sum of:
      0.057953686 = weight(_text_:science in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057953686 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.4656509 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.102423646 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.102423646 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx
  13. Mingers, J.; Macri, F.; Petrovici, D.: Using the h-index to measure the quality of journals in the field of business and management (2012) 0.04 
    0.038500603 = product of:
  0.07700121 = sum of:
    0.061633915 = weight(_text_:management in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061633915 = score(doc=2741,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.38701317 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
    0.015367293 = product of:
      0.030734586 = sum of:
        0.030734586 = weight(_text_:science in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030734586 = score(doc=2741,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper considers the use of the h-index as a measure of a journal's research quality and contribution. We study a sample of 455 journals in business and management all of which are included in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) and the Association of Business School's peer review journal ranking list. The h-index is compared with both the traditional impact factors, and with the peer review judgements. We also consider two sources of citation data - the WoS itself and Google Scholar. The conclusions are that the h-index is preferable to the impact factor for a variety of reasons, especially the selective coverage of the impact factor and the fact that it disadvantages journals that publish many papers. Google Scholar is also preferred to WoS as a data source. However, the paper notes that it is not sufficient to use any single metric to properly evaluate research achievements.
    Object
    Web of Science
    Source
    Information processing and management. 48(2012) no.2, S.234-241
  14. Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017) 0.04 
    0.03721175 = product of:
  0.0744235 = sum of:
    0.023722902 = weight(_text_:management in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023722902 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.050700597 = sum of:
      0.025094684 = weight(_text_:science in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025094684 = score(doc=4051,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.20163277 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.025605911 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025605911 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Special issue on "The reward system of science".
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.5, S.557-575
  15. Shah, T.A.; Gul, S.; Gaur, R.C.: Authors self-citation behaviour in the field of Library and Information Science (2015) 0.04 
    0.0371079 = product of:
  0.0742158 = sum of:
    0.02075754 = weight(_text_:management in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02075754 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.13034125 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
    0.05345826 = sum of:
      0.031053087 = weight(_text_:science in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031053087 = score(doc=2597,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.24950781 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
      0.022405172 = weight(_text_:22 in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022405172 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the author self-citation behavior in the field of Library and Information Science. Various factors governing the author self-citation behavior have also been studied. Design/methodology/approach The 2012 edition of Social Science Citation Index was consulted for the selection of LIS journals. Under the subject heading "Information Science and Library Science" there were 84 journals and out of these 12 journals were selected for the study based on systematic sampling. The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in select journals in the year 2009. The main reason to choose 2009 was to get at least five years (2009-2013) citation data from Web of Science Core Collection (excluding Book Citation Index) and SciELO Citation Index. A citation was treated as self-citation whenever one of the authors of citing and cited paper was common, i.e., the set of co-authors of the citing paper and that of the cited one are not disjoint. To minimize the risk of homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors' names, the authors compared full author names in citing and cited articles. Findings A positive correlation between number of authors and total number of citations exists with no correlation between number of authors and number/share of self-citations, i.e., self-citations are not affected by the number of co-authors in a paper. Articles which are produced in collaboration attract more self-citations than articles produced by only one author. There is no statistically significant variation in citations counts (total and self-citations) in works that are result of different types of collaboration. A strong and statistically significant positive correlation exists between total citation count and frequency of self-citations. No relation could be ascertained between total citation count and proportion of self-citations. Authors tend to cite more of their recent works than the work of other authors. Total citation count and number of self-citations are positively correlated with the impact factor of source publication and correlation coefficient for total citations is much higher than that for self-citations. A negative correlation exhibits between impact factor and the share of self-citations. Of particular note is that the correlation in all the cases is of weak nature. Research limitations/implications The research provides an understanding of the author self-citations in the field of LIS. readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study. Originality/value Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.4, S.458-468
  16. Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994) 0.04 
    0.03508254 = product of:
  0.14033017 = sum of:
    0.14033017 = sum of:
      0.05070948 = weight(_text_:science in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05070948 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
      0.08962069 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08962069 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
  17. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990) 0.04 
    0.03508254 = product of:
  0.14033017 = sum of:
    0.14033017 = sum of:
      0.05070948 = weight(_text_:science in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05070948 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.08962069 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08962069 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:29
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.5, S.368-375
  18. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990) 0.04 
    0.03508254 = product of:
  0.14033017 = sum of:
    0.14033017 = sum of:
      0.05070948 = weight(_text_:science in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05070948 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
      0.08962069 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08962069 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:55
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.5, S.376-386
  19. Marion, L.S.; McCain, K.W.: Contrasting views of software engineering journals : author cocitation choices and indexer vocabulary assignments (2001) 0.03 
    0.033522885 = product of:
  0.06704577 = sum of:
    0.05136159 = weight(_text_:management in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05136159 = score(doc=5767,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.32251096 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
    0.015684178 = product of:
      0.031368356 = sum of:
        0.031368356 = weight(_text_:science in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031368356 = score(doc=5767,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    We explore the intellectual subject structure and research themes in software engineering through the identification and analysis of a core journal literature. We examine this literature via two expert perspectives: that of the author, who identified significant work by citing it (journal cocitation analysis), and that of the professional indexer, who tags published work with subject terms to facilitate retrieval from a bibliographic database (subject profile analysis). The data sources are SCISEARCH (the on-line version of Science Citation Index), and INSPEC (a database covering software engineering, computer science, and information systems). We use data visualization tools (cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and PFNets) to show the "intellectual maps" of software engineering. Cocitation and subject profile analyses demonstrate that software engineering is a distinct interdisciplinary field, valuing practical and applied aspects, and spanning a subject continuum from "programming-in-the-smalI" to "programming-in-the-large." This continuum mirrors the software development life cycle by taking the operating system or major application from initial programming through project management, implementation, and maintenance. Object orientation is an integral but distinct subject area in software engineering. Key differences are the importance of management and programming: (1) cocitation analysis emphasizes project management and systems development; (2) programming techniques/languages are more influential in subject profiles; (3) cocitation profiles place object-oriented journals separately and centrally while the subject profile analysis locates these journals with the programming/languages group
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.4, S.297-308
  20. Rees-Potter, L.K.: Dynamic thesaural systems : a bibliometric study of terminological and conceptual change in sociology and economics with application to the design of dynamic thesaural systems (1989) 0.03 
    0.030967113 = product of:
  0.061934225 = sum of:
    0.047445804 = weight(_text_:management in 5059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047445804 = score(doc=5059,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 5059, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5059)
    0.014488421 = product of:
      0.028976843 = sum of:
        0.028976843 = weight(_text_:science in 5059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028976843 = score(doc=5059,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 5059, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5059)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Thesauri have been used in the library and information science field to provide a standard descriptor language for indexers or searchers to use in an informations storage and retrieval system. One difficulty has been the maintenance and updating of thesauri since terms used to describe concepts change over time and vary between users. This study investigates a mechanism by which thesauri can be updated and maintained using citation, co-citation analysis and citation context analysis.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 25(1989) no.6, S.677-691

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 1100
  • d 29
  • ? 1
  • chi 1
  • m 1
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 1105
  • m 18
  • el 11
  • s 9
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications