Search (148 results, page 1 of 8)

0.16928855 = product of:
  0.5078656 = sum of:
    0.2539328 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2539328 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33886743 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = 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)
    0.2539328 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2539328 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33886743 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

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

0.11015628 = product of:
  0.33046883 = sum of:
    0.19656177 = weight(_text_:united in 2940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19656177 = score(doc=2940,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.8765801 = fieldWeight in 2940, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2940)
    0.13390706 = weight(_text_:states in 2940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13390706 = score(doc=2940,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.608396 = fieldWeight in 2940, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2940)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

We investigate the contributions of particular disciplines, countries, and academic departments to the literature of library and information science (LIS) using data for the articles published in 31 journals from 2007 to 2012. In particular, we examine the contributions of authors outside the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada; faculty in departments other than LIS; and practicing librarians. Worldwide, faculty in LIS departments account for 31% of the journal literature; librarians, 23%; computer science faculty, 10%; and management faculty, 10%. The top contributing nations are the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, China, Canada, and Taiwan. Within the United States and the United Kingdom, the current productivity of LIS departments is correlated with past productivity and with other measures of reputation and performance. More generally, the distribution of contributions is highly skewed. In the United States, five departments account for 27% of the articles contributed by LIS faculty; in the United Kingdom, four departments account for nearly two-thirds of the articles. This skewed distribution reinforces the possibility that high-status departments may gain a permanent advantage in the competition for students, faculty, journal space, and research funding. At the same time, concentrations of research-active faculty in particular departments may generate beneficial spillover effects.

0.09096575 = product of:
  0.27289724 = sum of:
    0.13899016 = weight(_text_:united in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13899016 = score(doc=70,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.61983573 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
    0.13390706 = weight(_text_:states in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13390706 = score(doc=70,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.608396 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Multivariate linear regression models suggest a trade-off in allocations of national research and development (R&D). Government funding and spending in the higher education sector encourage publications as a long-term research benefit. Conversely, other components such as industrial funding and spending in the business sector encourage patenting. Our results help explain why the United States trails the European Union in publications: The focus in the United States is on industrial funding-some 70% of its total R&D investment. Likewise, our results also help explain why the European Union trails the United States in patenting, since its focus on government funding is less effective than industrial funding in predicting triadic patenting. Government funding contributes negatively to patenting in a multiple regression, and this relationship is significant in the case of triadic patenting. We provide new forecasts about the relationships of the United States, the European Union, and China for publishing; these results suggest much later dates for changes than previous forecasts because Chinese growth has been slowing down since 2003. Models for individual countries might be more successful than regression models whose parameters are averaged over a set of countries because nations can be expected to differ historically in terms of the institutional arrangements and funding schemes.

0.08999228 = product of:
  0.17998455 = sum of:
    0.083394095 = weight(_text_:united in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083394095 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
    0.08034424 = weight(_text_:states in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08034424 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
    0.016246213 = product of:
      0.032492425 = sum of:
        0.032492425 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032492425 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13996868 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039970156 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

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

0.084985696 = product of:
  0.25495708 = sum of:
    0.13899016 = weight(_text_:united in 1203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13899016 = score(doc=1203,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.61983573 = fieldWeight in 1203, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1203)
    0.11596692 = weight(_text_:states in 1203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11596692 = score(doc=1203,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.5268864 = fieldWeight in 1203, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1203)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Some 1,857 highly cited reviews, namely those cited at least 1,000 times since publication to 2011, were identified using the data hosted on the Science Citation Index ExpandedT database (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY) between 1899 and 2011. The data are disaggregated by publication date, citation counts, journals, Web of Science® (Thomson Reuters) subject areas, citation life cycles, and publications by Nobel Prize winners. Six indicators, total publications, independent publications, collaborative publications, first-author publications, corresponding-author publications, and single-author publications were applied to evaluate publication of institutions and countries. Among the highly cited reviews, 33% were single-author, 61% were single-institution, and 83% were single-country reviews. The United States ranked top for all 6 indicators. The G7 (United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, France, Japan, and Italy) countries were the site of almost all the highly cited reviews. The top 12 most productive institutions were all located in the United States with Harvard University (Cambridge, MA) the leader. The top 3 most productive journals were Chemical Reviews, Nature, and the Annual Review of Biochemistry. In addition, the impact of the reviews was analyzed by total citations from publication to 2011, citations in 2011, and citation in publication year.

0.07877865 = product of:
  0.23633593 = sum of:
    0.12036902 = weight(_text_:united in 617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12036902 = score(doc=617,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.53679353 = fieldWeight in 617, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=617)
    0.11596692 = weight(_text_:states in 617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11596692 = score(doc=617,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.5268864 = fieldWeight in 617, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=617)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This study undertook an exploratory analysis of the relationship between the body of scientific literature associated with HIV/AIDS and the trajectory of the epidemic, measured by the rate of new cases diagnosed annually in the United States for the period covering 1981 to 2009. The body of scientific literature examined in this investigation was constituted from scientific research that developed alongside the epidemic and was extracted from MEDLINE, a bibliographic database of the United States. National Library of Medicine. Content analysis methods were employed for qualitative data reduction, and regression analysis was used to assess whether variation in the trajectory of the epidemic co-occurred with variation in the publication of specific genres of content within the scientific literature relating to HIV/AIDS. The regression model confirmed a statistically significant association between the representative body of HIV/AIDS scientific literature and the epidemic trajectory, and identified three research categories, namely, ameliorative drug treatments, other clinical protocols, and health education, as being most significantly associated with the epidemic trajectory. Implicit in the findings of this study are areas of scientific research that are of functional and practical interest to clinicians, policy makers, the lay public, and contributors to the body of scientific literature.

0.07739599 = product of:
  0.23218796 = sum of:
    0.098280884 = weight(_text_:united in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.098280884 = score(doc=1505,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.43829006 = fieldWeight in 1505, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1505)
    0.13390706 = weight(_text_:states in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13390706 = score(doc=1505,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.608396 = fieldWeight in 1505, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1505)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

International coauthorship relations have increasingly shaped another dynamic in the natural and life sciences during recent decades. However, much less is known about such internationalization in the social sciences. In this study, we analyze international and domestic coauthorship relations of all citable items in the DVD version of the Social Sciences Citation Index 2011 (SSCI). Network statistics indicate 4 groups of nations: (a) an Asian-Pacific one to which all Anglo-Saxon nations (including the United Kingdom and Ireland) are attributed, (b) a continental European one including also the Latin-American countries, (c) the Scandinavian nations, and (d) a community of African nations. Within the EU-28, 11 of the EU-15 states have dominant positions. In many respects, the network parameters are not so different from the Science Citation Index. In addition to these descriptive statistics, we address the question of the relative weights of the international versus domestic networks. An information-theoretical test is proposed at the level of organizational addresses within each nation; the results are mixed, but the international dimension is more important than the national one in the aggregated sets (as in the Science Citation Index). In some countries (e.g., France), however, the national distribution is leading more than the international one. Decomposition of the United States in terms of states shows a similarly mixed result; more U.S. states are domestically oriented in the SSCI and more internationally in the SCI. The international networks have grown during the last decades in addition to the national ones but not by replacing them.

0.07277259 = product of:
  0.21831778 = sum of:
    0.11119213 = weight(_text_:united in 785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11119213 = score(doc=785,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.4958686 = fieldWeight in 785, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=785)
    0.10712565 = weight(_text_:states in 785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10712565 = score(doc=785,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.48671678 = fieldWeight in 785, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=785)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 102(2005), no.46, S.16569-16572

0.064322494 = product of:
  0.19296747 = sum of:
    0.098280884 = weight(_text_:united in 2780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.098280884 = score(doc=2780,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.43829006 = fieldWeight in 2780, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2780)
    0.09468659 = weight(_text_:states in 2780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09468659 = score(doc=2780,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.43020093 = fieldWeight in 2780, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2780)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Scientific progress is driven by important, infrequent discoveries that cannot be readily identified and quantified, which makes research assessment very difficult. Bibliometric indicators of important discoveries have been formulated using an empirical approach, based on the mathematical properties of the high-citation tail of the citation distribution. To investigate the theoretical basis of such formulations this study compares the US/European research performance ratios expressed in terms of highly cited papers and Nobel Prize-winning discoveries. The research performance ratio in terms of papers was studied from the citation distributions in the fields of chemistry, physics, and biochemistry and molecular biology. It varied as a function of the citation level. Selecting an appropriate high citation level, the ratios in terms of highly cited papers were compared with the corresponding ratios for Nobel Prize-winning discoveries in Chemistry, Physics, and Physiology or Medicine. Research performance ratios expressed in terms of highly cited papers and Nobel Prize-winning discoveries are reasonably similar, and suggest that the research success of the United States is almost 3 times that of Europe. A similar conclusion was obtained using articles published in Nature and Science.

0.06367602 = product of:
  0.19102806 = sum of:
    0.09729311 = weight(_text_:united in 2860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09729311 = score(doc=2860,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.433885 = fieldWeight in 2860, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2860)
    0.09373494 = weight(_text_:states in 2860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09373494 = score(doc=2860,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.42587718 = fieldWeight in 2860, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2860)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Generally, multicountry papers receive more citations than single-country ones. In this contribution, we examine if this rule also applies to American scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary journals. Concretely, we compare the citations received by American scientists in Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). It is shown that, statistically, American scientists publishing in Nature and Science do not benefit from international collaboration. This statement also holds for communicated submissions, but not for direct and for contributed submissions, to PNAS.

0.05507814 = product of:
  0.16523442 = sum of:
    0.098280884 = weight(_text_:united in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.098280884 = score(doc=3880,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.43829006 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
    0.06695353 = weight(_text_:states in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06695353 = score(doc=3880,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.304198 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The number and type of Web citations to journal articles in four areas of science are examined: biology, genetics, medicine, and multidisciplinary sciences. For a sample of 5,972 articles published in 114 journals, the median Web citation counts per journal article range from 6.2 in medicine to 10.4 in genetics. About 30% of Web citations in each area indicate intellectual impact (citations from articles or class readings, in contrast to citations from bibliographic services or the author's or journal's home page). Journals receiving more Web citations also have higher percentages of citations indicating intellectual impact. There is significant correlation between the number of citations reported in the databases from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now Thomson Scientific) and the number of citations retrieved using the Google search engine (Web citations). The correlation is much weaker for journals published outside the United Kingdom or United States and for multidisciplinary journals. Web citation numbers are higher than ISI citation counts, suggesting that Web searches might be conducted for an earlier or a more fine-grained assessment of an article's impact. The Web-evident impact of non-UK/USA publications might provide a balance to the geographic or cultural biases observed in ISI's data, although the stability of Web citation counts is debatable.

0.054579448 = product of:
  0.16373834 = sum of:
    0.083394095 = weight(_text_:united in 618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083394095 = score(doc=618,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 618, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=618)
    0.08034424 = weight(_text_:states in 618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08034424 = score(doc=618,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 618, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=618)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

We analyze the benefits in terms of scientific impact deriving from international collaboration, examining both those for a country when it collaborates and also those for the other countries when they are collaborating with the former. The data show the more countries there are involved in the collaboration, the greater the gain in impact. Contrary to what we expected, the scientific impact of a country does not significantly influence the benefit it derives from collaboration, but does seem to positively influence the benefit obtained by the other countries collaborating with it. Although there was a weak correlation between these two classes of benefit, the countries with the highest impact were clear outliers from this correlation, tending to provide proportionally more benefit to their collaborating countries than they themselves obtained. Two surprising findings were the null benefit resulting from collaboration with Iran, and the small benefit resulting from collaboration with the United States despite its high impact.

0.054579448 = product of:
  0.16373834 = sum of:
    0.083394095 = weight(_text_:united in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083394095 = score(doc=1015,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 1015, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1015)
    0.08034424 = weight(_text_:states in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08034424 = score(doc=1015,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 1015, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1015)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This article provides an overview of studies that have used citation analysis in the field of humanities in the period 1951 to 2010. The work is based on an exhaustive search in databases-particularly those in library and information science-and on citation chaining from papers on citation analysis. The results confirm that use of this technique in the humanities is limited, and although there was some growth in the 1970s and 1980s, it has stagnated in the past 2 decades. Most of the work has been done by research staff, but almost one third involves library staff, and 15% has been done by students. The study also showed that less than one fourth of the works used a citation database such as the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and that 21% of the works were in publications other than library and information science journals. The United States has the greatest output, and English is by far the most frequently used language, and 13.9% of the studies are in other languages.

0.054579448 = product of:
  0.16373834 = sum of:
    0.083394095 = weight(_text_:united in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083394095 = score(doc=1110,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 1110, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1110)
    0.08034424 = weight(_text_:states in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08034424 = score(doc=1110,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 1110, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1110)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Using data from the Web of Science (WoS), we analyze the mutual information among university, industry, and government addresses (U-I-G) at the country level for a number of countries. The dynamic evolution of the Triple Helix can thus be compared among developed and developing nations in terms of cross-sectional coauthorship relations. The results show that the Triple Helix interactions among the three subsystems U-I-G become less intensive over time, but unequally for different countries. We suggest that globalization erodes local Triple Helix relations and thus can be expected to have increased differentiation in national systems since the mid-1990s. This effect of globalization is more pronounced in developed countries than in developing ones. In the dynamic analysis, we focus on a more detailed comparison between China and the United States. Specifically, the Chinese Academy of the (Social) Sciences is changing increasingly from a public research institute to an academic one, and this has a measurable effect on China's position in the globalization.

0.045482874 = product of:
  0.13644862 = sum of:
    0.06949508 = weight(_text_:united in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06949508 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
    0.06695353 = weight(_text_:states in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06695353 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.304198 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Previous analyses identified research on environmental tobacco smoke to be subject to strong fluctuations as measured by both quantitative and qualitative indicators. The evolution of search algorithms (based on the Web of Science and Web of Knowledge database platforms) was used to show the impact of errors of omission and commission in the outcomes of scientometric research. Optimization of the search algorithm led to the complete reassessment of previously published findings on the performance of environmental tobacco smoke research. Instead of strong continuous growth, the field of environmental tobacco smoke research was shown to experience stagnation or slow growth since mid-1990s when evaluated quantitatively. Qualitative analysis revealed steady but slow increase in the citation rate and decrease in uncitedness. Country analysis revealed the North-European countries as leaders in environmental tobacco smoke research (when the normalized results were evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively), whereas the United States ranked first only when assessing the total number of papers produced. Scientometric research artifacts, including both errors of omission and commission, were shown to be capable of completely obscuring the real output of the chosen research field.

0.045482874 = product of:
  0.13644862 = sum of:
    0.06949508 = weight(_text_:united in 1616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06949508 = score(doc=1616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 1616, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1616)
    0.06695353 = weight(_text_:states in 1616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06695353 = score(doc=1616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.304198 = fieldWeight in 1616, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1616)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Previous studies of international scientific collaboration have rarely gone beyond revealing the structural relationships between countries. Considering how scientific collaboration is actually initiated, this study focuses on the organization and sector levels of international coauthorship networks, going beyond a country-level description. Based on a network analysis of coauthorship networks between members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), this study attempts to gain a better understanding of international scientific collaboration by exploring the structure of the coauthorship network in terms of university-industry-government (UIG) relationships, the mode of knowledge production, and the underlying dynamic of collaboration in terms of geographic, linguistic, and economic factors. The results suggest that the United States showed overwhelming dominance in all bilateral UIG combinations with the exception of the government-government (GG) network. Scientific collaboration within the industry sector was concentrated in a few players, whereas that between the university and industry sectors was relatively less concentrated. Despite the growing participation from other sectors, universities were still the main locus of knowledge production, with the exception of 5 countries. The university sector in English-speaking wealthy countries and the government sector of non-English-speaking, less-wealthy countries played a key role in international collaborations between OECD countries. The findings did not provide evidence supporting the institutional proximity argument.

0.045482874 = product of:
  0.13644862 = sum of:
    0.06949508 = weight(_text_:united in 3758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06949508 = score(doc=3758,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 3758, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3758)
    0.06695353 = weight(_text_:states in 3758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06695353 = score(doc=3758,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.304198 = fieldWeight in 3758, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3758)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Whereas traditional science maps emphasize citation statistics and static relationships, this paper presents a term-based method to identify and visualize the evolutionary pathways of scientific topics in a series of time slices. First, we create a data preprocessing model for accurate term cleaning, consolidating, and clustering. Then we construct a simulated data streaming function and introduce a learning process to train a relationship identification function to adapt to changing environments in real time, where relationships of topic evolution, fusion, death, and novelty are identified. The main result of the method is a map of scientific evolutionary pathways. The visual routines provide a way to indicate the interactions among scientific subjects and a version in a series of time slices helps further illustrate such evolutionary pathways in detail. The detailed outline offers sufficient statistical information to delve into scientific topics and routines and then helps address meaningful insights with the assistance of expert knowledge. This empirical study focuses on scientific proposals granted by the United States National Science Foundation, and demonstrates the feasibility and reliability. Our method could be widely applied to a range of science, technology, and innovation policy research, and offer insight into the evolutionary pathways of scientific activities.

0.045482874 = product of:
  0.13644862 = sum of:
    0.06949508 = weight(_text_:united in 545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06949508 = score(doc=545,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 545, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=545)
    0.06695353 = weight(_text_:states in 545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06695353 = score(doc=545,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.304198 = fieldWeight in 545, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=545)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The emphasis on research evaluation has brought scrutiny to the role of self-citations in the scholarly communication process. While author self-citations have been studied at length, little is known on national-level self-references (SRs). This paper analyses the citation context of national SRs, using the full-text of 184,859 papers published in PLOS journals. It investigates the differences between national SRs and nonself-references (NSRs) in terms of their in-text mention, presence in enumerations, and location features. For all countries, national SRs exhibit a higher level of engagement than NSRs. NSRs are more often found in enumerative citances than SRs, which suggests that researchers pay more attention to domestic than foreign studies. There are more mentions of national research in the methods section, which provides evidence that methodologies developed in a nation are more likely to be used by other researchers from the same nation. Publications from the United States are cited at a higher rate in each of the sections, indicating that the country still maintains a dominant position in science. On the whole, this paper contributes to a better understanding of the role of national SRs in the scholarly communication system, and how it varies across countries and over time.

0.036386296 = product of:
  0.10915889 = sum of:
    0.055596065 = weight(_text_:united in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055596065 = score(doc=3048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.2479343 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
    0.053562824 = weight(_text_:states in 3048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053562824 = score(doc=3048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22009853 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.24335839 = fieldWeight in 3048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3048)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This study aims to identify the way researchers collaborate with other researchers in the course of the scientific research life cycle and provide information to the designers of e-Science and e-Research implementations. On the basis of in-depth interviews with and on-site observations of 24 scientists and a follow-up focus group interview in the field of bioscience/nanoscience and technology in Korea, we examined scientific collaboration using the framework of the scientific research life cycle. We attempt to explain the major motiBiochemistry is a highly funded research area that is typified by large research teams and is important for many areas of the life sciences. This article investigates the citation impact and Mendeley readership impact of biochemistry research from 2011 in the Web of Science according to the type of collaboration involved. Negative binomial regression models are used that incorporate, for the first time, the inclusion of specific countries within a team. The results show that, holding other factors constant, larger teams robustly associate with higher impact research, but including additional departments has no effect and adding extra institutions tends to reduce the impact of research. Although international collaboration is apparently not advantageous in general, collaboration with the United States, and perhaps also with some other countries, seems to increase impact. In contrast, collaborations with some other nations seems to decrease impact, although both findings could be due to factors such as differing national proportions of excellent researchers. As a methodological implication, simpler statistical models would find international collaboration to be generally beneficial and so it is important to take into account specific countries when examining collaboration.t only in the beginning phase of the cycle. For communication and information-sharing practices, scientists continue to favor traditional means of communication for security reasons. Barriers to collaboration throughout the phases included different priorities, competitive tensions, and a hierarchical culture among collaborators, whereas credit sharing was a barrier in the research product phase.

0.033213437 = product of:
  0.09964031 = sum of:
    0.083394095 = weight(_text_:united in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083394095 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22423708 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039970156 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
    0.016246213 = product of:
      0.032492425 = sum of:
        0.032492425 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032492425 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13996868 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039970156 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This article introduces a new source of evidence of the value of medical-related research: citations from clinical guidelines. These give evidence that research findings have been used to inform the day-to-day practice of medical staff. To identify whether citations from guidelines can give different information from that of traditional citation counts, this article assesses the extent to which references in clinical guidelines tend to be highly cited in the academic literature and highly read in Mendeley. Using evidence from the United Kingdom, references associated with the UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines tended to be substantially more cited than comparable articles, unless they had been published in the most recent 3 years. Citation counts also seemed to be stronger indicators than Mendeley readership altmetrics. Hence, although presence in guidelines may be particularly useful to highlight the contributions of recently published articles, for older articles citation counts may already be sufficient to recognize their contributions to health in society.

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00