Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.042699903 = product of:
  0.08539981 = sum of:
    0.08539981 = product of:
      0.17079961 = sum of:
        0.17079961 = weight(_text_:journals in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17079961 = score(doc=751,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.66570526 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article compares doctoral students' and faculty members' referencing behavior through the analysis of a large corpus of scientific articles. It shows that doctoral students tend to cite more documents per article than faculty members, and that the literature they cite is, on average, more recent. It also demonstrates that doctoral students cite a larger proportion of conference proceedings and journal articles than faculty members and faculty members are more likely to self-cite and cite theses than doctoral students. Analysis of the impact of cited journals indicates that in health research, faculty members tend to cite journals with slightly lower impact factors whereas in social sciences and humanities, faculty members cite journals with higher impact factors. Finally, it provides evidence that, in every discipline, faculty members tend to cite a higher proportion of clinical/applied research journals than doctoral students. This study contributes to the understanding of referencing patterns and age stratification in academia. Implications for understanding the information-seeking behavior of academics are discussed.

0.036979202 = product of:
  0.073958404 = sum of:
    0.073958404 = product of:
      0.14791681 = sum of:
        0.14791681 = weight(_text_:journals in 1959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14791681 = score(doc=1959,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5765177 = fieldWeight in 1959, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study utilized bibliometric tools to analyze the relationship between two separate, but related, fields: Library and Information Science (LIS) and Management Information Systems (MIS). The top-ranked 48 journals in each field were used as the unit of analysis. Using these journals, field cocitation was introduced as a method for evaluating the relationships between the two fields. The three-phased study evaluated (a) the knowledge imported/exported between LIS and MIS, (b) the body of knowledge influenced by both fields, and (c) the overlap in fields as demonstrated by multidimensional scaling. Data collection and analysis were performed using DIALOG and SPSS programs. The primary findings from this study indicate that (a) the MIS impact on LIS is greater than the reverse, (b) there is a growing trend for shared impact between the two disciplines, and (c) the area of overlap between the two fields is predominately those journals focusing on technology systems and digital information. Additionally, this study validated field cocitation as a method by which to evaluate relationships between fields.

0.036979202 = product of:
  0.073958404 = sum of:
    0.073958404 = product of:
      0.14791681 = sum of:
        0.14791681 = weight(_text_:journals in 3298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14791681 = score(doc=3298,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5765177 = fieldWeight in 3298, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study uses citations, from 1996 to 2007, to the work of 80 randomly selected full-time, information studies (IS) faculty members from North America to examine differences between Scopus and Web of Science in assessing the scholarly impact of the field focusing on the most frequently citing journals, conference proceedings, research domains and institutions, as well as all citing countries. Results show that when assessment is limited to smaller citing entities (e.g., journals, conference proceedings, institutions), the two databases produce considerably different results, whereas when assessment is limited to larger citing entities (e.g., research domains, countries), the two databases produce very similar pictures of scholarly impact. In the former case, the use of Scopus (for journals and institutions) and both Scopus and Web of Science (for conference proceedings) is necessary to more accurately assess or visualize the scholarly impact of IS, whereas in the latter case, assessing or visualizing the scholarly impact of IS is independent of the database used.

0.036979202 = product of:
  0.073958404 = sum of:
    0.073958404 = product of:
      0.14791681 = sum of:
        0.14791681 = weight(_text_:journals in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14791681 = score(doc=4349,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5765177 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ranking scientific productivity and prestige are often limited to homogeneous networks. These networks are unable to account for the multiple factors that constitute the scholarly communication and reward system. This study proposes a new informetric indicator, P-Rank, for measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks containing articles, authors, and journals. P-Rank differentiates the weight of each citation based on its citing papers, citing journals, and citing authors. Articles from 16 representative library and information science journals are selected as the dataset. Principle Component Analysis is conducted to examine the relationship between P-Rank and other bibliometric indicators. We also compare the correlation and rank variances between citation counts and P-Rank scores. This work provides a new approach to examining prestige in scholarly communication networks in a more comprehensive and nuanced way.

0.03558325 = product of:
  0.0711665 = sum of:
    0.0711665 = product of:
      0.142333 = sum of:
        0.142333 = weight(_text_:journals in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.142333 = score(doc=607,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5547544 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Conceptualizations of disciplinarity often focus on the social aspects of disciplines; that is, disciplines are defined by the set of individuals who participate in their activities and communications. However, operationalizations of disciplinarity often demarcate the boundaries of disciplines by standard classification schemes, which may be inflexible to changes in the participation profile of that discipline. To address this limitation, a metric called venue-author-coupling (VAC) is proposed and illustrated using journals from the Journal Citation Report's (JCR) library science and information science category. As JCRs are some of the most frequently used categories in bibliometric analyses, this allows for an examination of the extent to which the journals in JCR categories can be considered as proxies for disciplines. By extending the idea of bibliographic coupling, VAC identifies similarities among journals based on the similarities of their author profiles. The employment of this method using information science and library science journals provides evidence of four distinct subfields, that is, management information systems, specialized information and library science, library science-focused, and information science-focused research. The proposed VAC method provides a novel way to examine disciplinarity from the perspective of author communities.

0.025161162 = product of:
  0.050322324 = sum of:
    0.050322324 = product of:
      0.10064465 = sum of:
        0.10064465 = weight(_text_:journals in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10064465 = score(doc=1229,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.39227062 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.

0.017791625 = product of:
  0.03558325 = sum of:
    0.03558325 = product of:
      0.0711665 = sum of:
        0.0711665 = weight(_text_:journals in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0711665 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.2773772 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study comprises a suite of analyses of words in article titles in order to reveal the cognitive structure of Library and Information Science (LIS). The use of title words to elucidate the cognitive structure of LIS has been relatively neglected. The present study addresses this gap by performing (a) co-word analysis and hierarchical clustering, (b) multidimensional scaling, and (c) determination of trends in usage of terms. The study is based on 10,344 articles published between 1988 and 2007 in 16 LIS journals. Methodologically, novel aspects of this study are: (a) its large scale, (b) removal of non-specific title words based on the "word concentration" measure (c) identification of the most frequent terms that include both single words and phrases, and (d) presentation of the relative frequencies of terms using "heatmaps". Conceptually, our analysis reveals that LIS consists of three main branches: the traditionally recognized library-related and information-related branches, plus an equally distinct bibliometrics/scientometrics branch. The three branches focus on: libraries, information, and science, respectively. In addition, our study identifies substructures within each branch. We also tentatively identify "information seeking behavior" as a branch that is establishing itself separate from the three main branches. Furthermore, we find that cognitive concepts in LIS evolve continuously, with no stasis since 1992. The most rapid development occurred between 1998 and 2001, influenced by the increased focus on the Internet. The change in the cognitive landscape is found to be driven by the emergence of new information technologies, and the retirement of old ones.

0.017791625 = product of:
  0.03558325 = sum of:
    0.03558325 = product of:
      0.0711665 = sum of:
        0.0711665 = weight(_text_:journals in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0711665 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.2773772 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.