Search (1282 results, page 1 of 65)

0.10754331 = product of:
  0.23659527 = sum of:
    0.074435055 = weight(_text_:higher in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074435055 = score(doc=669,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.41037157 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
    0.11966642 = weight(_text_:effect in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11966642 = score(doc=669,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.654274 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
    0.012341722 = weight(_text_:of in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012341722 = score(doc=669,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
    0.018455777 = weight(_text_:on in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018455777 = score(doc=669,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
    0.011696288 = product of:
      0.023392577 = sum of:
        0.023392577 = weight(_text_:22 in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023392577 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 669, 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=669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.45454547 = coord(5/11)

Abstract

This paper deals with the role of a journal's publisher country in determining the expected citation rates of the articles published in it. We analyze whether a paper has a higher citation rate when it is published in one of the large publisher nations, the U.S., U.K., or the Netherlands, compared to a hypothetical situation when the same paper is published in journals of different origin. This would constitute a "free lunch," which could be explained by a Matthew effect visible on the country-level, similar to the well-documented Matthew effect on the author-level. We first use a simulation model that highlights increasing citation returns to quality as the central key condition on which such a Matthew effect may emerge. Then we use an international bibliometric panel data set of forty-nine countries for the years 2000-2010 and show that such a "free lunch" implied by this Matthew effect can be observed for top journals from the U.S. and depending on the specification also from the U.K. and the Netherlands, while there is no effect for lower-ranked American journals and negative effects for lower-ranked British journals as well as those coming from the Netherlands.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:45:49

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.3, S.596-611

0.09297781 = product of:
  0.25568897 = sum of:
    0.091163956 = weight(_text_:higher in 3833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.091163956 = score(doc=3833,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.5026005 = fieldWeight in 3833, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3833)
    0.131088 = weight(_text_:effect in 3833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.131088 = score(doc=3833,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.7167213 = fieldWeight in 3833, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3833)
    0.01745383 = weight(_text_:of in 3833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01745383 = score(doc=3833,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 3833, 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=3833)
    0.015983174 = weight(_text_:on in 3833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015983174 = score(doc=3833,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 3833, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3833)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

Outstanding scholars have generally been regarded as having special influence that enables them to publish articles in top-tier journals and obtain higher levels of research funding. This study proposes that the social effect of an outstanding scholar, which is derived from the halo effect and the Matthew effect, is favorable for the expansion of the scholar's personal research network and will improve that scholar's future research accomplishments. Data for a total of 101 outstanding information systems scholars and 36 ordinary scholars were collected. The definition of an outstanding scholar is based on the quality and quantity of their publications. The results show that the social effect of the outstanding scholars is beneficial for the development of a research network, including 3 types of network structures. In addition, being highly connected with colleagues leads to higher research accomplishments in terms of quantity, while being connected with colleagues from different sub-fields leads to higher research accomplishments in terms of novelty. Additionally, this study found that the social effect of outstanding scholars is a double-edged sword, with both positive and negative impacts on research accomplishments. The findings contribute several theoretical and practical implications for future research.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.10, S.2449-2459

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

0.08063108 = product of:
  0.17738837 = sum of:
    0.06316024 = weight(_text_:higher in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06316024 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34821182 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
    0.064219736 = weight(_text_:effect in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064219736 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
    0.016793035 = weight(_text_:of in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016793035 = score(doc=5270,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
    0.01917981 = weight(_text_:on in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01917981 = score(doc=5270,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
    0.014035545 = product of:
      0.02807109 = sum of:
        0.02807109 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02807109 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.45454547 = coord(5/11)

Abstract

The age distribution of a country's scientists is an important element in the study of its research capacity. In this article we investigate the age distribution of Japanese scientists in order to find out whether major events such as World War II had an appreciable effect on its features. Data have been obtained from population censuses taken in Japan from 1970 to 1995. A comparison with the situation in China and the United States has been made. We find that the group of scientific researchers outside academia is dominated by the young: those younger than age 35. The personnel group in higher education, on the other hand, is dominated by the baby boomers: those who were born after World War II. Contrary to the Chinese situation we could not find any influence of major nondemographic events. The only influence we found was the increase in enrollment of university students after World War II caused by the reform of the Japanese university system. Female participation in the scientific and university systems in Japan, though still low, is increasing.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:26:24

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.342-346

0.07977436 = product of:
  0.43875894 = sum of:
    0.21937947 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21937947 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2927568 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = 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)
    0.21937947 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21937947 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2927568 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = 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)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Content

Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.

0.07833853 = product of:
  0.21543096 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=514,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 514, 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=514)
    0.01745383 = weight(_text_:of in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01745383 = score(doc=514,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 514, 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=514)
    0.12470941 = weight(_text_:innovations in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12470941 = score(doc=514,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.5311756 = fieldWeight in 514, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=514)
    0.02063419 = weight(_text_:on in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02063419 = score(doc=514,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.271686 = fieldWeight in 514, 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=514)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. The comparison focuses on the methodological choices underlying the different rankings. Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations include (1) an indicator based on counting a university's highly cited publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non-English language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking and a number of limitations of the ranking are pointed out.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.12, S.2405-2418

0.07521651 = product of:
  0.20684539 = sum of:
    0.06316024 = weight(_text_:higher in 3338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06316024 = score(doc=3338,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34821182 = fieldWeight in 3338, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3338)
    0.111231856 = weight(_text_:effect in 3338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111231856 = score(doc=3338,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.6081582 = fieldWeight in 3338, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3338)
    0.016793035 = weight(_text_:of in 3338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016793035 = score(doc=3338,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 3338, 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=3338)
    0.015660247 = weight(_text_:on in 3338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015660247 = score(doc=3338,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 3338, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3338)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

Since the publication of Robert K. Merton's theory of cumulative advantage in science (Matthew Effect), several empirical studies have tried to measure its presence at the level of papers, individual researchers, institutions, or countries. However, these studies seldom control for the intrinsic quality of papers or of researchers - better (however defined) papers or researchers could receive higher citation rates because they are indeed of better quality. Using an original method for controlling the intrinsic value of papers - identical duplicate papers published in different journals with different impact factors - this paper shows that the journal in which papers are published have a strong influence on their citation rates, as duplicate papers published in high-impact journals obtain, on average, twice as many citations as their identical counterparts published in journals with lower impact factors. The intrinsic value of a paper is thus not the only reason a given paper gets cited or not, there is a specific Matthew Effect attached to journals and this gives to papers published there an added value over and above their intrinsic quality.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.424-427

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

0.06409073 = product of:
  0.1762495 = sum of:
    0.06316024 = weight(_text_:higher in 2169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06316024 = score(doc=2169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34821182 = fieldWeight in 2169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2169)
    0.090820424 = weight(_text_:effect in 2169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090820424 = score(doc=2169,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.49655905 = fieldWeight in 2169, 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=2169)
    0.011195358 = weight(_text_:of in 2169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011195358 = score(doc=2169,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2169, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2169)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 2169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=2169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2169, 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=2169)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

There is increasing evidence that citations to Chinese research publications are rising sharply. A series of reasons have been highlighted in previous studies. This research explores another possibility-whether there is a "clubbing" effect in China's surge in research citations, in which a higher rate of internal citing takes place among influential Chinese researchers. Focusing on the most highly cited research articles in nanotechnology, we find that a larger proportion of Chinese nanotechnology research citations are localized within individual, institutional, and national networks within China. Both descriptive and statistical tests suggest that highly cited Chinese papers are more likely than similar U.S. papers to receive internal and localized citations. Tentative explanations and policy implications are discussed.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1923-1932

0.06378719 = product of:
  0.17541477 = sum of:
    0.091163956 = weight(_text_:higher in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.091163956 = score(doc=5071,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.5026005 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
    0.053516448 = weight(_text_:effect in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053516448 = score(doc=5071,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
    0.014751178 = weight(_text_:of in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014751178 = score(doc=5071,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 5071, 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=5071)
    0.015983174 = weight(_text_:on in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015983174 = score(doc=5071,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

The academic impact advantage of Open Access (OA) is a prominent topic of debate in the library and publishing communities. Web citations have been proposed as comparable to, even replacements for, bibliographic citations in assessing the academic impact of journals. In our study, we compare Web citations to articles in an OA journal, the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC), and a traditional access journal, New Media & Society (NMS), in the communication discipline. Web citation counts for JCMC are significantly higher than those for NMS. Furthermore, JCMC receives significantly higher Web citations from the formal scholarly publications posted on the Web than NMS does. The types of Web citations for journal articles were also examined. In the Web context, the impact of a journal can be assessed using more than one type of source: citations from scholarly articles, teaching materials and non-authoritative documents. The OA journal has higher percentages of citations from the third type, which suggests that, in addition to the research community, the impact advantage of open access is also detectable among ordinary users participating in Web-based academic communication. Moreover, our study also proves that the OA journal has impact advantage in developing countries. Compared with NMS, JCMC has more Web citations from developing countries.

0.06137845 = product of:
  0.22505431 = sum of:
    0.08421365 = weight(_text_:higher in 778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08421365 = score(doc=778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.46428242 = fieldWeight in 778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=778)
    0.12109391 = weight(_text_:effect in 778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12109391 = score(doc=778,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.66207874 = fieldWeight in 778, 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=778)
    0.019746756 = weight(_text_:of in 778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019746756 = score(doc=778,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 778, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=778)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

I propose the index $\hbar$ ("hbar"), defined as the number of papers of an individual that have citation count larger than or equal to the $\hbar$ of all coauthors of each paper, as a useful index to characterize the scientific output of a researcher that takes into account the effect of multiple authorship. The bar is higher for $\hbar.$

0.060657226 = product of:
  0.16680737 = sum of:
    0.091163956 = weight(_text_:higher in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.091163956 = score(doc=995,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.5026005 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.053516448 = weight(_text_:effect in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053516448 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.010430659 = weight(_text_:of in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010430659 = score(doc=995,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.011696288 = product of:
      0.023392577 = sum of:
        0.023392577 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023392577 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.791-810

0.0593538 = product of:
  0.16322294 = sum of:
    0.06316024 = weight(_text_:higher in 2171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06316024 = score(doc=2171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34821182 = fieldWeight in 2171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2171)
    0.064219736 = weight(_text_:effect in 2171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064219736 = score(doc=2171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 2171, 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=2171)
    0.020182718 = weight(_text_:of in 2171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020182718 = score(doc=2171,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 2171, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2171)
    0.015660247 = weight(_text_:on in 2171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015660247 = score(doc=2171,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2171, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2171)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

Even with very well-documented rankings of universities, it is difficult for an individual university to reconstruct its position in the ranking. What is the reason behind whether a university places higher or lower in the ranking? Taking the example of ETH Zurich, the aim of this communication is to reconstruct how the high position of ETHZ (in Europe rank no. 1 in PP[top 10%]) in the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) Leiden Ranking 2013 in the field "social sciences, arts and humanities" came about. According to our analyses, the bibliometric indicator values of a university depend very strongly on weights that result in differing estimates of both the total number of a university's publications and the number of publications with a citation impact in the 90th percentile, or PP(top 10%). In addition, we examine the effect of weights at the level of individual publications. Based on the results, we offer recommendations for improving the Leiden Ranking (for example, publication of sample calculations to increase transparency).

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1950-1953

0.05916089 = product of:
  0.16269244 = sum of:
    0.011426214 = weight(_text_:of in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011426214 = score(doc=2696,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 2696, 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=2696)
    0.053855482 = weight(_text_:technological in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053855482 = score(doc=2696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
    0.08818286 = weight(_text_:innovations in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08818286 = score(doc=2696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.37559783 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
    0.009227889 = weight(_text_:on in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009227889 = score(doc=2696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 2696, 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=2696)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

As an acceptable proxy for innovative activity, patents have become increasingly important in recent years. Patents and patent citations have been used for construction of technology indicators. This article presents an alternative to other citation-based indicators, i.e., the patent h-index, which is borrowed from bibliometrics. We conduct the analysis on a sample of the world's top 20 firms ranked by total patents granted in the period 1996-2005 from the Derwent Innovations Index in the semiconductor area. We also investigate the relationships between the patent h-index and other three indicators, i.e., patent counts, citation counts, and the mean family size (MFS). The findings show that the patent h-index is indeed an effective indicator for evaluating the technological importance and quality, or impact, for an assignee. In addition, the MFS indicator correlates negatively and not significantly with the patent h-index, which indicates that the social value of a patent is in disagreement with its private value. The two indicators, patent h-index and MFS, both provide an overview of the value of patents, but from two different angles.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.1, S.35-40

0.058267236 = product of:
  0.1602349 = sum of:
    0.074435055 = weight(_text_:higher in 3165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074435055 = score(doc=3165,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.41037157 = fieldWeight in 3165, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3165)
    0.053516448 = weight(_text_:effect in 3165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053516448 = score(doc=3165,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 3165, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3165)
    0.019233186 = weight(_text_:of in 3165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019233186 = score(doc=3165,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 3165, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3165)
    0.013050207 = weight(_text_:on in 3165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013050207 = score(doc=3165,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 3165, 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=3165)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to show how bibliometrics would benefit from a stronger programme of construct validity. Design/methodology/approach The value of the construct validity concept is demonstrated by applying this approach to the evaluation of the h-index, a widely used metric. Findings The paper demonstrates that the h-index comprehensively fails any test of construct validity. In simple terms, the metric does not measure what it purports to measure. This conclusion suggests that the current popularity of the h-index as a topic for bibliometric research represents wasted effort, which might have been avoided if researchers had adopted the approach suggested in this paper. Research limitations/implications This study is based on the analysis of a single bibliometric concept. Practical implications The conclusion that the h-index fails any test in terms of construct validity implies that the widespread use of this metric within the higher education sector as a management tool represents poor practice, and almost certainly results in the misallocation of resources. Social implications This paper suggests that the current enthusiasm for the h-index within the higher education sector is misplaced. The implication is that universities, grant funding bodies and faculty administrators should abandon the use of the h-index as a management tool. Such a change would have a significant effect on current hiring, promotion and tenure practices within the sector, as well as current attitudes towards the measurement of academic performance. Originality/value The originality of the paper lies in the systematic application of the concept of construct validity to bibliometric enquiry.

Source

Journal of documentation. 72(2016) no.5, S.878-895

0.057975955 = product of:
  0.15943387 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 5123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=5123,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 5123, 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=5123)
    0.07568369 = weight(_text_:effect in 5123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07568369 = score(doc=5123,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.41379923 = fieldWeight in 5123, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5123)
    0.018066432 = weight(_text_:of in 5123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018066432 = score(doc=5123,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 5123, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5123)
    0.013050207 = weight(_text_:on in 5123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013050207 = score(doc=5123,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 5123, 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=5123)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

Studies of the concentration of author productivity based upon counts of papers by individual authors will produce measures that change systematically with sample size. Yoshikane, Kageura, and Tsuji seek a statistical framework which will avoid this scale effect problem. Using the number of authors in a field as an absolute concentration measure, and Gini's index as a relative concentration measure, they describe four literatures form both viewpoints with measures insensitive to one another. Both measures will increase with sample size. They then plot profiles of the two measures on the basis of a Monte-Carlo simulation of 1000 trials for 20 equally spaced intervals and compare the characteristics of the literatures. Using data from conferences hosted by four academic societies between 1992 and 1997, they find a coefficient of loss exceeding 0.15 indicating measures will depend highly on sample size. The simulation shows that a larger sample size leads to lower absolute concentration and higher relative concentration. Comparisons made at the same sample size present quite different results than the original data and allow direct comparison of population characteristics.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.519-527

0.057137653 = product of:
  0.15712854 = sum of:
    0.074435055 = weight(_text_:higher in 3160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074435055 = score(doc=3160,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.41037157 = fieldWeight in 3160, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3160)
    0.053516448 = weight(_text_:effect in 3160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053516448 = score(doc=3160,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2926002 = fieldWeight in 3160, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3160)
    0.013193856 = weight(_text_:of in 3160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013193856 = score(doc=3160,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 3160, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3160)
    0.015983174 = weight(_text_:on in 3160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015983174 = score(doc=3160,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 3160, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3160)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

arXiv.org mediates contact with the literature for entire scholarly communities, providing both archival access and daily email and web announcements of new materials. We confirm and extend a surprising correlation between article position in these initial announcements and later citation impact, due primarily to intentional self-promotion by authors. There is, however, also a pure visibility effect: the subset of articles accidentally in early positions fared measurably better in the long-term citation record. Articles in astrophysics (astro-ph) and two large subcommunities of theoretical high energy physics (hep-th and hep-ph) announced in position 1, for example, respectively received median numbers of citations 83%, 50%, and 100% higher than those lower down, while the subsets there accidentally had 44%, 38%, and 71% visibility boosts. We also consider the positional effects on early readership. The median numbers of early full text downloads for astro-ph, hep-th, and hep-ph articles announced in position 1 were 82%, 61%, and 58% higher than for lower positions, respectively, and those there accidentally had medians visibility-boosted by 53%, 44%, and 46%. Finally, we correlate a variety of readership features with long-term citations, using machine learning methods, and conclude with some observations on impact metrics and the dangers of recommender mechanisms.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2203-2218

0.05589424 = product of:
  0.15370916 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 4753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=4753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 4753, 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=4753)
    0.07568369 = weight(_text_:effect in 4753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07568369 = score(doc=4753,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.41379923 = fieldWeight in 4753, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4753)
    0.012341722 = weight(_text_:of in 4753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012341722 = score(doc=4753,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 4753, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4753)
    0.013050207 = weight(_text_:on in 4753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013050207 = score(doc=4753,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 4753, 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=4753)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

International collaborative papers are increasingly common in journals of many disciplines. These types of papers are often cited more frequently. To identify the coauthorship trends within Library and Information Science (LIS), this study analyzed 7,489 papers published in six leading publications (ARIST, IP&M, JAMIA, JASIST, MISQ, and Scientometrics) over the last three decades. Logistic regression tested the relationships between citations received and seven factors: authorship type, author's subregion, country income level, publication year, number of authors, document type, and journal title. The main authorship type since 1995 was national collaboration. It was also the dominant type for all publications studied except ARIST, and for all regions except Africa. For citation counts, the logistic regression analysis found all seven factors were significant. Papers that included international collaboration, Northern European authors, and authors in high-income nations had higher odds of being cited more. Papers from East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Southern Europe had lower odds than North American papers. As discussed in the bibliometric literature, Merton's Matthew Effect sheds light on the differential citation counts based on the authors' subregion. This researcher proposes geographies of invisible colleagues and a geographic scope effect to further investigate the relationships between author geographic affiliation and citation impact.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.9, S.1770-1783

0.052791458 = product of:
  0.19356868 = sum of:
    0.016793035 = weight(_text_:of in 494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016793035 = score(doc=494,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 494, 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=494)
    0.14965129 = weight(_text_:innovations in 494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14965129 = score(doc=494,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23478 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.6374107 = fieldWeight in 494, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=494)
    0.027124345 = weight(_text_:on in 494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027124345 = score(doc=494,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.35714048 = fieldWeight in 494, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=494)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Multiple perspectives on the nonlinear processes of medical innovations can be distinguished and combined using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) of the MEDLINE database. Focusing on three main branches-"diseases," "drugs and chemicals," and "techniques and equipment"-we use base maps and overlay techniques to investigate the translations and interactions and thus to gain a bibliometric perspective on the dynamics of medical innovations. To this end, we first analyze the MEDLINE database, the MeSH index tree, and the various options for a static mapping from different perspectives and at different levels of aggregation. Following a specific innovation (RNA interference) over time, the notion of a trajectory which leaves a signature in the database is elaborated. Can the detailed index terms describing the dynamics of research be used to predict the diffusion dynamics of research results? Possibilities are specified for further integration between the MEDLINE database on one hand, and the Science Citation Index and Scopus (containing citation information) on the other.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.11, S.2239-2253

0.052570805 = product of:
  0.14456971 = sum of:
    0.05263353 = weight(_text_:higher in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05263353 = score(doc=4578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18138453 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.252756 = idf(docFreq=628, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2901765 = fieldWeight in 4578, 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=4578)
    0.015471167 = weight(_text_:of in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015471167 = score(doc=4578,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 4578, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4578)
    0.015983174 = weight(_text_:on in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015983174 = score(doc=4578,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 4578, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4578)
    0.060481843 = weight(_text_:great in 4578) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060481843 = score(doc=4578,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19443816 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 4578, 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=4578)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)

Abstract

Just as citations to a book can be counted, so can that book's libcitations-the number of libraries in a consortium that hold it. These holdings counts per title can be obtained from the consortium's union catalog, such as OCLC's WorldCat. Librarians seeking to serve their customers well must be attuned to various kinds of merit in books. The result in WorldCat is a great variation in the libcitations particular books receive. The higher a title's count (or percentile), the more famous it is-either absolutely or within a subject class. Degree of fame also indicates cultural impact, allowing that further documentation of impact may be needed. Using WorldCat data, we illustrate high, medium, and low degrees of fame with 170 titles published during 1990-1995 or 2001-2006 and spanning the 10 main Dewey classes. We use their total libcitation counts or their counts from members of the Association of Research Libraries, or both, as of late 2011. Our analysis of their fame draws on the recognizability of their authors, the extent to which they and their authors are covered by Wikipedia, and whether they have movie or TV versions. Ordinal scales based on Wikipedia coverage and on libcitation counts are very significantly associated.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.12, S.1502-1512