Search (239 results, page 1 of 12)

0.081969 = product of:
  0.22541475 = sum of:
    0.090820424 = weight(_text_:effect in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090820424 = score(doc=286,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.49655905 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
    0.017701415 = weight(_text_:of in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017701415 = score(doc=286,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
    0.105819434 = weight(_text_:innovations in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105819434 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.45071742 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

In this article, we investigated the factors determining the capability of academic articles to be cited in the future using a topological analysis of citation networks. The basic idea is that articles that will have many citations were in a "similar" position topologically in the past. To validate this hypothesis, we investigated the correlation between future times cited and three measures of centrality: clustering centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality. We also analyzed the effect of aging as well as of self-correlation of times cited. Case studies were performed in the two following recent representative innovations: Gallium Nitride and Complex Networks. The results suggest that times cited is the main factor in explaining the near future times cited, and betweenness centrality is correlated with the distant future times cited. The effect of topological position on the capability to be cited is influenced by the migrating phenomenon in which the activated center of research shifts from an existing domain to a new emerging domain.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.6, S.872-882

0.06891442 = product of:
  0.18951465 = sum of:
    0.08932207 = weight(_text_:higher in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08932207 = score(doc=5120,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.4924459 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
    0.064219736 = weight(_text_:effect in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064219736 = score(doc=5120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
    0.016793035 = weight(_text_:of in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016793035 = score(doc=5120,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
    0.01917981 = weight(_text_:on in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01917981 = score(doc=5120,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

There is an ongoing discussion on the influence of international collaboration on impact as measured by citation based indicators. Collaboration generally involves more authors than 'no collaboration' work and it is obvious that the phenomenon of self citation will be stronger (there are more authors to cite themselves). Thus it can be seen as an important 'amplifier' of measured impact. Asserts, however, that this effect should not be considered as the only or even major explanation of higher impact in the comparison between 'no collaboration' and international collaboration. Using data of an extensive bibliometric study of astronomical research in the Netherlands, proves that higher rates of self citation in international collaboration do not play any significant role as 'impact amplifier'. The central point is that proper impact measurement must involve corrections for self citations

0.0630551 = product of:
  0.1734015 = sum of:
    0.020651652 = weight(_text_:of in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020651652 = score(doc=5269,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
    0.12345601 = weight(_text_:innovations in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12345601 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.525837 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
    0.012919044 = weight(_text_:on in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012919044 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
    0.016374804 = product of:
      0.03274961 = sum of:
        0.03274961 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03274961 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, 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=5269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

This comparative case study of the diffusion and nondiffusion over time of eight theories in the social sciences uses citation analysis, citation context analysis, content analysis, surveys of editorial review boards, and personal interviews with theorists to develop a model of the theory functions that facilitate theory diffusion throughout specific intellectual communities. Unlike previous work on the diffusion of theories as innovations, this theory functions model differs in several important respects from the findings of previous studies that employed Everett Rogers's classic typology of innovation characteristics that promote diffusion. The model is also presented as a contribution to a more integrated theory of citation.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:20:01

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.330-341

0.045561314 = product of:
  0.16705814 = sum of:
    0.023546506 = weight(_text_:of in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023546506 = score(doc=37,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.43605784 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
    0.1305926 = weight(_text_:technological in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1305926 = score(doc=37,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.7117617 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
    0.012919044 = weight(_text_:on in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012919044 = score(doc=37,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Describes the construction of improved informetric models of individual scientific and technological areas on the basis of individual co citation clusters. The developed methodology of replenishment of research front with accidently absent papers describes the model more completely. Proposes the simple method of cluster 'dynamization' for the study of evolution of research area. The transition under consideration from co citation clusters to lexical maps of papers and patents enables the monitoring of the relationshuip between R and D in a given technological area. Provides the example from modern chemical engineering of Pressure-Swing Adsorption

0.042878747 = product of:
  0.15722206 = sum of:
    0.12109391 = weight(_text_:effect in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12109391 = score(doc=1064,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.66207874 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
    0.010555085 = weight(_text_:of in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010555085 = score(doc=1064,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
    0.025573079 = weight(_text_:on in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025573079 = score(doc=1064,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.33671528 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

It has been shown (Lawrence, S. (2001). Online or invisible? Nature, 411, 521) that journal articles which have been posted without charge on the internet are more heavily cited than those which have not been. Using data from the NASA Astrophysics Data System (ads.harvard.edu) and from the ArXiv e-print archive at Cornell University (arXiv.org) we examine the causes of this effect.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem "Special Issue on Infometrics"

0.03540478 = product of:
  0.12981752 = sum of:
    0.018281942 = weight(_text_:of in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018281942 = score(doc=5129,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 5129, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5129)
    0.014764623 = weight(_text_:on in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014764623 = score(doc=5129,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 5129, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5129)
    0.09677095 = weight(_text_:great in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09677095 = score(doc=5129,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.49769527 = fieldWeight in 5129, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5129)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

States that it can be shown that claims of a lack of theories of citation are also indicative of a great need for a theory which links science dynamics and measurement. There is a wide gap between qualitative (science dynamics) and quantitative (measurement) approaches. To link them, proposes the use of the citation system, that potentially bridges a gap between measurement and epistemology, by applying system theory to the publication system

Footnote

Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'

0.031120092 = product of:
  0.114107 = sum of:
    0.08932207 = weight(_text_:higher in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08932207 = score(doc=2288,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.4924459 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
    0.013711456 = weight(_text_:of in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013711456 = score(doc=2288,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=2288,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

A pilot study on the relative retrieval effectiveness of semantic relevance (by terms) and pragmatic relevance (by citations) is reported. A single database has been constructed to provide access by both descriptors and cited references. For each question from a set of queries, two equivalent sets were retrieved. All retrieved items were evaluated by subject experts for relevance to their originating queries. We conclude that there are essentially two types of relevance at work resulting in two different sets of documents. Using both search methods to create a union set is likely to increase recall. Those few retrieved by the intersection of the two methods tend to result in higher precision. Suggestions are made to develop a front-end system to display the overlapping items for higher precision and to manipulate and rank the union set sets retrieved by the two search modes for improved output

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 40(1989), S.226-235

0.03022783 = product of:
  0.11083537 = sum of:
    0.0130612515 = weight(_text_:of in 4259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0130612515 = score(doc=4259,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 4259, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4259)
    0.07539768 = weight(_text_:technological in 4259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07539768 = score(doc=4259,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.41093582 = fieldWeight in 4259, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4259)
    0.022376444 = weight(_text_:on in 4259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022376444 = score(doc=4259,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 4259, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4259)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Discusses evaluation techniques as an integral part of science with the emphasis on evalution for policy purposes. Outlines early attempts to validate the use of biliometric indicators. Concludes that: best results are obtained by applying a variety of methods simultaneously; reliable results can be obtained from citation analysis for purely scientific subfields such as physics; and citation analysis tends to give unreliable results for technological subjects. Concludes that bibliometrics as a technique for determining policy should never be used on its own. Describes an evaluation method used for selecting research projects for financial support, as applied by STW, the technology branch of the Netherlands' research council, NWO

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 20(1995) no.4, S.16-24

0.027325248 = product of:
  0.10019258 = sum of:
    0.064219736 = weight(_text_:effect in 1036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064219736 = score(doc=1036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 1036, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1036)
    0.016793035 = weight(_text_:of in 1036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016793035 = score(doc=1036,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 1036, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1036)
    0.01917981 = weight(_text_:on in 1036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01917981 = score(doc=1036,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 1036, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1036)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Historically, co-citation models have been based only on bibliographic information. Full-text analysis offers the opportunity to significantly improve the quality of the signals upon which these co-citation models are based. In this work we study the effect of reference proximity on the accuracy of co-citation clusters. Using a corpus of 270,521 full text documents from 2007, we compare the results of traditional co-citation clustering using only the bibliographic information to results from co-citation clustering where proximity between reference pairs is factored into the pairwise relationships. We find that accounting for reference proximity from full text can increase the textual coherence (a measure of accuracy) of a co-citation cluster solution by up to 30% over the traditional approach based on bibliographic information.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.9, S.1759-17676

0.025949253 = product of:
  0.09514726 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
    0.021879537 = weight(_text_:of in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021879537 = score(doc=444,freq=44.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.40518725 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
            44.0 = termFreq=44.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
    0.02063419 = weight(_text_:on in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02063419 = score(doc=444,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.271686 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Scientists may seek to report a single definable body of research in more than one publication, that is, in repeated reports of the same work or in fractional reports, in order to disseminate their research as widely as possible in the scientific community. Up to now, however, it has not been examined whether this strategy of "multiple publication" in fact leads to greater reception of the research. In the present study, we investigate the influence of number of articles reporting the results of a single study on reception in the scientific community (total citation counts of an article on a single study). Our data set consists of 96 applicants for a research fellowship from the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds (BIF), an international foundation for the promotion of basic research in biomedicine. The applicants reported to us all articles that they had published within the framework of their doctoral research projects. On this single project, the applicants had published from 1 to 16 articles (M = 4; Mdn = 3). The results of a regression model with an interaction term show that the practice of multiple publication of research study results does in fact lead to greater reception of the research (higher total citation counts) in the scientific community. However, reception is dependent upon length of article: the longer the article, the more total citation counts increase with the number of articles. Thus, it pays for scientists to practice multiple publication of study results in the form of sizable reports.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.8, S.1100-1107

0.025388151 = product of:
  0.13963483 = sum of:
    0.12843947 = weight(_text_:effect in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12843947 = score(doc=4175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.7022405 = fieldWeight in 4175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4175)
    0.011195358 = weight(_text_:of in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011195358 = score(doc=4175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 4175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4175)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

0.024931418 = product of:
  0.1371228 = sum of:
    0.016159108 = weight(_text_:of in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016159108 = score(doc=3293,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
    0.120963685 = weight(_text_:great in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120963685 = score(doc=3293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.62211907 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Citing authors' names in indexes and references can cause great difficulties, as ghosts, subterfuges, and collaborative teamwork may often obscure the true begetters of published works. Presents a collection of facts and findings about authors that relate in one way or another to their names

0.0248525 = product of:
  0.09112583 = sum of:
    0.064219736 = weight(_text_:effect in 4419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064219736 = score(doc=4419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 4419, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4419)
    0.015832627 = weight(_text_:of in 4419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015832627 = score(doc=4419,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4419, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4419)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 4419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=4419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4419, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4419)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

In two case studies of research units, reference values used to benchmark research performance appeared to show contradictory results: the average citation level in the subfields (FCSm) increased world-wide, while the citation level of the journals (JCSm) decreased, where concomitant changes were expected. Explanations were sought in: a shift in preference of document types; a change in publication preference for subfields; and changes in journal coverage. Publishing in newly covered journals with a low impact had a negative effect on impact ratios. However, the main factor behind the increase in FCSm was the distribution of articles across the five-year block periods that were studied. Publication in lower impact journals produced a lagging JCSm. Actual values of JCSm, FCSm, and citations per publication (CPP) values are not very informative either about research performance, or about the development of impact over time in a certain subfield with block indicators. Normalized citation impact indicators are free from such effects and should be consulted primarily in research performance assessments.

Source

Journal of documentation. 60(2004) no.6, S.658-672

0.024274 = product of:
  0.089004666 = sum of:
    0.064219736 = weight(_text_:effect in 5768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064219736 = score(doc=5768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 5768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5768)
    0.013711456 = weight(_text_:of in 5768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013711456 = score(doc=5768,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 5768, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5768)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 5768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=5768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 5768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5768)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

A citation analysis of undergraduate term papers in microeconomics revealed a significant decrease in the frequency of scholarly resources cited between 1996 and 1999. Book citations decreased from 30% to 19%, newspaper citations increased from 7% to 19%, and Web citations increased from 9% to 21%. Web citations checked in 2000 revealed that only 18% of URLs cited in 1996 led to the correct Internet document. For 1999 bibliographies, only 55% of URLs led to the correct document. The authors recommend (1) setting stricter guidelines for acceptable citations in course assignments; (2) creating and maintaining scholarly portals for authoritative Web sites with a commitment to long-term access; and (3) continuing to instruct students how to critically evaluate resources

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.4, S.309-314

0.022828344 = product of:
  0.08370393 = sum of:
    0.0139941955 = weight(_text_:of in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0139941955 = score(doc=4279,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
    0.009227889 = weight(_text_:on in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009227889 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
    0.060481843 = weight(_text_:great in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060481843 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 39(2005), S.81-138

0.022673883 = product of:
  0.083137564 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=1900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
    0.01745383 = weight(_text_:of in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01745383 = score(doc=1900,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
    0.013050207 = weight(_text_:on in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013050207 = score(doc=1900,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which library and information science (LIS) issues have been handled in the formulation of recent UK Higher Education policy concerned with research quality evaluation. Design/methodology/approach - A chronological review of decision making about digital rights arrangements for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and of recent announcements about the new shape of metrics-based assessment in the Research Excellence Framework, which supersedes the RAE. Against this chronological framework, the likely nature of LIS practitioner reactions to the flow of decision making is suggested. Findings - It was found that a weak grasp of LIS issues by decision makers undermines the process whereby effective research evaluation models are created. LIS professional opinion should be sampled before key decisions are made. Research limitations/implications - This paper makes no sophisticated comments on the complex research issues underlying advanced bibliometric research evaluation models. It does point out that sophisticated and expensive bibliometric consultancies arrive at many conclusions about metrics-based research assessment that are common knowledge amongst LIS practitioners. Practical implications - Practical difficulties arise when one announces a decision to move to a new and specific type of research evaluation indicator before one has worked out anything very specific about that indicator. Originality/value - In this paper, the importance of information management issues to the mainstream issues of government and public administration is underlined. The most valuable conclusion of this paper is that, because LIS issues are now at the heart of democratic decision making, LIS practitioners and professionals should be given some sort of role in advising on such matters.

0.022483965 = product of:
  0.0824412 = sum of:
    0.04281316 = weight(_text_:effect in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04281316 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.23408018 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.020096282 = weight(_text_:of in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020096282 = score(doc=180,freq=58.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.37216315 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          7.615773 = tf(freq=58.0), with freq of:
            58.0 = termFreq=58.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.019531762 = weight(_text_:on in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019531762 = score(doc=180,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25717056 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

In the author's three previous articles dealing with the ICR phenomenon (JASIS, 49, 1998, 477-481; 50, 1999, 1284-1294; JASIST, 52, 2001, 201-211) the nature, life course, and importance of this phenomenon of scientific literature was demonstrated. It was shown that the quantity of nonindexed indirect-collective references in The Physical Review now alone exceeds many times over the quantity of formal references listed in the Science Citation Index as "citations." It was shown that the ICR phenomenon is present in all the 44 elite physics journals of a representative sample of this literature. The bibliometrically very heterogeneous sample is very homogeneous regarding the presence and frequency of the ICR phenomenon. However, no real connection could be found between the simple degree of documentedness and the presence and frequency of the ICR phenomenon on the journal level of the sample. The present article reports the findings of the latest ICR investigation carried out on the level of communications of the representative sample. Correlation calculations were carried out in the stock of all 458 communications containing the ICR phenomenon as a statistical population, and within this population also in the groups of communications of the "normal" and the "letter" journals, and the "short communications." The correlation analysis did not find notable statistical correlation between the simple and specific degree of documentedness of a communication and the number of works cited in it by ICR act(s) either in the total population or in the selected groups. There is no correlation either statistical or real (i.e., cause-and-effect) between the documentedness of scientific communications made by their authors and the presence and intensity of the ICR method used by their authors. However, in reality there exists a very strong connection between these two statistically independent variables: both depend on the referencing author, on his/her subjectivity and barely limited subjective free will. This subjective free will shapes the stock of the formal-direct references of scientific communications, thereby placing the achievements cited in this way and their creators into the (indexed) showcase of present Big Science. The same free will decides on the use or nonuse of the ICR method, and in the case of use also on the intensity with which the method is used

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.1, S.47-56

0.021936797 = product of:
  0.08043492 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
    0.014751178 = weight(_text_:of in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014751178 = score(doc=5176,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
    0.013050207 = weight(_text_:on in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013050207 = score(doc=5176,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.14, S.1313-1324

0.021216959 = product of:
  0.11669327 = sum of:
    0.10526706 = weight(_text_:higher in 2006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10526706 = score(doc=2006,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.580353 = fieldWeight in 2006, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2006)
    0.011426214 = weight(_text_:of in 2006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011426214 = score(doc=2006,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 2006, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2006)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that lower performance groups have a larger size-dependent cumulative advantage for receiving citations than do top-performance groups. Furthermore, regardless of performance, larger groups have less not-cited publications. Particularly for the lower performance groups, the fraction of not-cited publications decreases considerably with size. These phenomena can be explained with a model in which self-citation acts as a promotion mechanism for external citations. In this article, we show that for self-citations, similar size-dependent scaling rules apply as for citations, but generally the power law exponents are higher for self-citations as compared to citations. We also find that the fraction of self-citations is smaller for the higher performance groups, and this fraction decreases more rapidly with increasing journal impact than that for lower performance groups. An interesting novel finding is that the variance in the correlation of the number of self-citations with size is considerably less than the variance for external citations. This is a clear indication that size is a stronger determinant for self-citations than it is for external citations. Both higher and particularly lower performance groups have a size-dependent cumulative advantage for self-citations, but for the higher performance groups only in the lower impact journals and in fields with low citation density.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.10, S.1631-1643

0.020614633 = product of:
  0.07558699 = sum of:
    0.04281316 = weight(_text_:effect in 433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04281316 = score(doc=433,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.23408018 = fieldWeight in 433, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=433)
    0.016266478 = weight(_text_:of in 433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016266478 = score(doc=433,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.30123898 = fieldWeight in 433, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=433)
    0.016507352 = weight(_text_:on in 433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016507352 = score(doc=433,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21734878 = fieldWeight in 433, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=433)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

This article explores the status of research in hydrogeology using data mining techniques. First we try to explain what citation analysis is and review some of the previous work on citation analysis. The main idea in this article is to address some common issues about citation numbers and the use of these data. To validate the use of citation numbers, we compare the citation patterns for Water Resources Research papers in the 1980s with those in the 1990s. The citation growths for highly cited authors from the 1980s are used to examine whether it is possible to predict the citation patterns for highly-cited authors in the 1990s. If the citation data prove to be steady and stable, these numbers then can be used to explore the evolution of science in hydrogeology. The famous quotation, "If you are not the lead dog, the scenery never changes," attributed to Lee Iacocca, points to the importance of an entrepreneurial spirit in all forms of endeavor. In the case of hydrogeological research, impact analysis makes it clear how important it is to be a pioneer. Statistical correlation coefficients are used to retrieve papers among a collection of 2,847 papers before and after 1991 sharing the same topics with 273 papers in 1991 in Water Resources Research. The numbers of papers before and after 1991 are then plotted against various levels of citations for papers in 1991 to compare the distributions of paper population before and after that year. The similarity metrics based on word counts can ensure that the "before" papers are like ancestors and "after" papers are descendants in the same type of research. This exercise gives us an idea of how many papers are populated before and after 1991 (1991 is chosen based on balanced numbers of papers before and after that year). In addition, the impact of papers is measured in terms of citation presented as "percentile," a relative measure based on rankings in one year, in order to minimize the effect of time.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.4, S.518-525