Search (419 results, page 1 of 21)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Asubiaro, T.V.; Onaolapo, S.: ¬A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef (2023) 0.15 
    0.14560515 = product of:
  0.2912103 = sum of:
    0.2912103 = sum of:
      0.2565945 = weight(_text_:journals in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2565945 = score(doc=992,freq=26.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          1.0000978 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
            5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
              26.0 = termFreq=26.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
      0.03461579 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03461579 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This is the first study that evaluated the coverage of journals from Africa in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. A list of active journals published in each of the 55 African countries was compiled from Ulrich's periodicals directory and African Journals Online (AJOL) website. Journal master lists for Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef were searched for the African journals. A total of 2,229 unique active African journals were identified from Ulrich (N = 2,117, 95.0%) and AJOL (N = 243, 10.9%) after removing duplicates. The volume of African journals in Web of Science and Scopus databases is 7.4% (N = 166) and 7.8% (N = 174), respectively, compared to the 45.6% (N = 1,017) covered in CrossRef. While making up only 17.% of all the African journals, South African journals had the best coverage in the two most authoritative databases, accounting for 73.5% and 62.1% of all the African journals in Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. In contrast, Nigeria published 44.5% of all the African journals. The distribution of the African journals is biased in favor of Medical, Life and Health Sciences and Humanities and the Arts in the three databases. The low representation of African journals in CrossRef, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African-centric research indexing database, is concerning.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 14:09:06
  2. Tonta, Y.; Ünal, Y.: Scatter of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in document delivery requests (2005) 0.12 
    0.124097 = product of:
  0.248194 = sum of:
    0.248194 = sum of:
      0.22050136 = weight(_text_:journals in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.22050136 = score(doc=3271,freq=30.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.85942185 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
            5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
              30.0 = termFreq=30.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
      0.027692629 = weight(_text_:22 in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027692629 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this paper we investigate the scattering of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in more than 137,000 document delivery requests submitted to a national document delivery service. We first summarize the major findings of the study with regards to the performance of the service. We then identify the "core" journals from which article requests were satisfied and address the following research questions: (a) Does the distribution of (core) journals conform to the Bradford's Law of Scattering? (b) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and impact factors, journals with high impact factors being used more often than the rest? (c) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being used more often than the rest? (d) What is the median age of use (half-life) of requested articles in general? (e) Do requested articles that appear in core journals get obsolete more slowly? (f) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and journal impact factors, journals with high impact factors being obsolete more slowly? (g) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being obsolete more slowly? Based an the analysis of findings, we found that the distribution of highly and moderately used journal titles conform to Bradford's Law. The median age of use was 8 years for all requested articles. Ninety percent of the articles requested were 21 years of age or younger. Articles that appeared in 168 core journal titles seem to get obsolete slightly more slowly than those of all titles. We observed no statistically significant correlations between the frequency of journal use and ISI journal impact factors, and between the frequency of journal use and ISI- (Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA) cited half-lives for the most heavily used 168 core journal titles. There was a weak correlation between usage of journals and ISI-reported total citation counts. No statistically significant relationship was found between median age of use and journal impact factors and between median age of use and total citation counts. There was a weak negative correlation between ISI journal impact factors and cited half-lives of 168 core journals, and a weak correlation between ISI citation halflives and use half-lives of core journals. No correlation was found between cited half-lives of 168 core journals and their corresponding total citation counts as reported by ISI. Findings of the current study are discussed along with those of other studies.
    Date
    20. 3.2005 10:54:22
  3. Mukherjee, B.: Do open-access journals in library and information science have any scholarly impact? : a bibliometric study of selected open-access journals using Google Scholar (2009) 0.12 
    0.12405765 = product of:
  0.2481153 = sum of:
    0.2481153 = sum of:
      0.21349952 = weight(_text_:journals in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21349952 = score(doc=2745,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.83213156 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
      0.03461579 = weight(_text_:22 in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03461579 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2745, 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=2745)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Using 17 fully open-access journals published uninterruptedly during 2000 to 2004 in the field of library and information science, the present study investigates the impact of these open-access journals in terms of quantity of articles published, subject distribution of the articles, synchronous and diachronous impact factor, immediacy index, and journals' and authors' self-citation. The results indicate that during this 5-year publication period, there are as many as 1,636 articles published by these journals. At the same time, the articles have received a total of 8,591 Web citations during a 7-year citation period. Eight of 17 journals have received more than 100 citations. First Monday received the highest number of citations; however, the average number of citations per article was the highest in D-Lib Magazine. The value of the synchronous impact factor varies from 0.6989 to 1.0014 during 2002 to 2005, and the diachronous impact factor varies from 1.472 to 2.487 during 2000 to 2004. The range of the immediacy index varies between 0.0714 and 1.395. D-Lib Magazine has an immediacy index value above 0.5 in all the years whereas the immediacy index value varies from year to year for the other journals. When the citations of sample articles were analyzed according to source, it was found that 40.32% of the citations came from full-text articles, followed by 33.35% from journal articles. The percentage of journals' self-citation was only 6.04%.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:54:59
  4. Campanario, J.M.: Large increases and decreases in journal impact factors in only one year : the effect of journal self-citations (2011) 0.12 
    0.12386416 = product of:
  0.24772832 = sum of:
    0.24772832 = sum of:
      0.19926621 = weight(_text_:journals in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19926621 = score(doc=4187,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.77665615 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
      0.0484621 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0484621 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    I studied the factors (citations, self-citations, and number of articles) that influenced large changes in only 1 year in the impact factors (IFs) of journals. A set of 360 instances of journals with large increases or decreases in their IFs from a given year to the following was selected from journals in the Journal Citation Reports from 1998 to 2007 (40 journals each year). The main factor influencing large changes was the change in the number of citations. About 54% of the increases and 42% of the decreases in the journal IFs were associated with changes in the journal self-citations.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:53:00
  5. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.11 
    0.11145234 = product of:
  0.22290468 = sum of:
    0.22290468 = sum of:
      0.1882889 = weight(_text_:journals in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1882889 = score(doc=4635,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.73387116 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
      0.03461579 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03461579 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.
  6. Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022) 0.11 
    0.11051586 = product of:
  0.22103173 = sum of:
    0.22103173 = sum of:
      0.17256962 = weight(_text_:journals in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17256962 = score(doc=547,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.672604 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
      0.0484621 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0484621 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.
    Date
    6. 4.2022 19:22:26
  7. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.11 
    0.106169276 = product of:
  0.21233855 = sum of:
    0.21233855 = sum of:
      0.17079961 = weight(_text_:journals in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17079961 = score(doc=994,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.66570526 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
  8. Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017) 0.10 
    0.10446871 = product of:
  0.20893742 = sum of:
    0.20893742 = sum of:
      0.17432164 = weight(_text_:journals in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17432164 = score(doc=4410,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.67943263 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
      0.03461579 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03461579 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between dissemination of research papers on Twitter and its influence on research impact. Design/methodology/approach Four types of journal Twitter accounts (journal, owner, publisher and no Twitter account) were defined to observe differences in the number of tweets and citations. In total, 4,176 articles from 350 journals were extracted from Plum Analytics. This altmetric provider tracks the number of tweets and citations for each paper. Student's t-test for two-paired samples was used to detect significant differences between each group of journals. Regression analysis was performed to detect which variables may influence the getting of tweets and citations. Findings The results show that journals with their own Twitter account obtain more tweets (46 percent) and citations (34 percent) than journals without a Twitter account. Followers is the variable that attracts more tweets (ß=0.47) and citations (ß=0.28) but the effect is small and the fit is not good for tweets (R2=0.46) and insignificant for citations (R2=0.18). Originality/value This is the first study that tests the performance of research journals on Twitter according to their handles, observing how the dissemination of content in this microblogging network influences the citation of their papers.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  9. Kreider, J.: ¬The correlation of local citation data with citation data from Journal Citation Reports (1999) 0.09 
    0.094727874 = product of:
  0.18945575 = sum of:
    0.18945575 = sum of:
      0.14791681 = weight(_text_:journals in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14791681 = score(doc=102,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.5765177 = fieldWeight in 102, 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=102)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 102, 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=102)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    University librarians continue to face the difficult task of determining which journals remain crucial for their collections during these times of static financial resources and escalating journal costs. One evaluative tool, Journal Citation Reports (JCR), recently has become available on CD-ROM, making it simpler for librarians to use its citation data as input for ranking journals. But many librarians remain unconvinced that the global citation data from the JCR bears enough correspondence to their local situation to be useful. In this project, I explore the correlation between global citation data available from JCR with local citation data generated specifically for the University of British Columbia, for 20 subject fields in the sciences and social sciences. The significant correlations obtained in this study suggest that large research-oriented university libraries could consider substituting global citation data for local citation data when evaluating their journals, with certain cautions.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  10. Schubert, T.; Michels, C.: Placing articles in the large publisher nations : is there a "free lunch" in terms of higher impact? (2013) 0.09 
    0.08847439 = product of:
  0.17694879 = sum of:
    0.17694879 = sum of:
      0.142333 = weight(_text_:journals in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.142333 = score(doc=669,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.5547544 = fieldWeight in 669, 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=669)
      0.03461579 = weight(_text_:22 in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03461579 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = 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)
    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
  11. Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016) 0.09 
    0.08847439 = product of:
  0.17694879 = sum of:
    0.17694879 = sum of:
      0.142333 = weight(_text_:journals in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.142333 = score(doc=2646,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.5547544 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
      0.03461579 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03461579 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A statistical analysis of full text downloads of articles in Elsevier's ScienceDirect covering all disciplines reveals large differences in download frequencies, their skewness, and their correlation with Scopus-based citation counts, between disciplines, journals, and document types. Download counts tend to be 2 orders of magnitude higher and less skewedly distributed than citations. A mathematical model based on the sum of two exponentials does not adequately capture monthly download counts. The degree of correlation at the article level within a journal is similar to that at the journal level in the discipline covered by that journal, suggesting that the differences between journals are, to a large extent, discipline specific. Despite the fact that in all studied journals download and citation counts per article positively correlate, little overlap may exist between the set of articles appearing in the top of the citation distribution and that with the most frequently downloaded ones. Usage and citation leaks, bulk downloading, differences between reader and author populations in a subject field, the type of document or its content, differences in obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations, and different functions of reading and citing in the research process all provide possible explanations of differences between download and citation distributions.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:11:17
  12. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.08 
    0.081156254 = product of:
  0.16231251 = sum of:
    0.16231251 = sum of:
      0.12077357 = weight(_text_:journals in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12077357 = score(doc=201,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.47072473 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
  13. Marshakova-Shaikevich, I.: ¬The standard impact factor as an evaluation tool of science fields and scientific journals (1996) 0.08 
    0.07531556 = product of:
  0.15063111 = sum of:
    0.15063111 = product of:
      0.30126223 = sum of:
        0.30126223 = weight(_text_:journals in 5075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30126223 = score(doc=5075,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            1.1741939 = fieldWeight in 5075, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5075)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Introduces the standard impact factor for particular fields of science (Ig) and the relative impact factor K for scientific journals. The technique for the calculation of the standard impact factor for a field is an inherent part of a methods which allows a cross field evaluation of scientific journals. This method for evaluating scientific journals elaborated in 1988 was aimed at the analysis of Russian journals covered by the SCI database; it was also used for chemical journals and for journals in the life sciences
  14. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.07 
    0.07207237 = product of:
  0.14414474 = sum of:
    0.14414474 = sum of:
      0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08539981 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.05874494 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05874494 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20%, 50%, and 80% of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  15. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011) 0.07 
    0.06763022 = product of:
  0.13526043 = sum of:
    0.13526043 = sum of:
      0.10064465 = weight(_text_:journals in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10064465 = score(doc=4186,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.39227062 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
      0.03461579 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03461579 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07
  16. Costas, R.; Zahedi, Z.; Wouters, P.: ¬The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media : large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations (2015) 0.07 
    0.06763022 = product of:
  0.13526043 = sum of:
    0.13526043 = sum of:
      0.10064465 = weight(_text_:journals in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10064465 = score(doc=2598,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.39227062 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
      0.03461579 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03461579 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  17. Zhou, P.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬A comparison between the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database and the Science Citation Index in terms of journal hierarchies and interjournal citation relations (2007) 0.07 
    0.06751448 = product of:
  0.13502896 = sum of:
    0.13502896 = product of:
      0.27005792 = sum of:
        0.27005792 = weight(_text_:journals in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27005792 = score(doc=70,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            1.0525725 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The journal structure in the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database (CSTPCD) is analyzed from three perspectives: the database level, the specialty level, and the institutional level (i.e., university journals vs. journals issued by the Chinese Academy of Sciences). The results are compared with those for (Chinese) journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI). The frequency of journal-journal citation relations in the CSTPCD is an order of magnitude lower than in the SCI. Chinese journals, especially high-quality journals, prefer to cite international journals rather than domestic ones; however, Chinese journals do not get an equivalent reception from their international counterparts. The international visibility of Chinese journals is low, but varies among fields of science. Journals of the Chinese Academy of Sciences have a better reception in the international scientific community than university journals.
  18. Heneberg, P.: Parallel worlds of citable documents and others : inflated commissioned opinion articles enhance scientometric indicators (2014) 0.06 
    0.06414863 = product of:
  0.12829725 = sum of:
    0.12829725 = product of:
      0.2565945 = sum of:
        0.2565945 = weight(_text_:journals in 1227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2565945 = score(doc=1227,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            1.0000978 = fieldWeight in 1227, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Scientometric indicators influence the standing of journals among peers, thus affecting decisions regarding manuscript submissions, scholars' careers, and funding. Here we hypothesize that impact-factor boosting (unethical behavior documented previously in several underperforming journals) should not be considered as exceptional, but that it affects even the top-tier journals. We performed a citation analysis of documents recently published in 11 prominent general science and biomedical journals. In these journals, only 12 to 79% of what they publish was considered original research, whereas editorial materials alone constituted 11 to 44% of the total document types published. Citations to commissioned opinion articles comprised 3 to 15% of the total citations to the journals within 3 postpublication years, with even a higher share occurring during the first postpublication year. An additional 4 to 15% of the citations were received by the journals from commissioned opinion articles published in other journals. Combined, the parallel world of uncitable documents was responsible for up to 30% of the total citations to the top-tier journals, with the highest values found for medical science journals (New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and the Lancet) and lower values found for the Science, Nature, and Cell series journals. Self-citations to some of the top-tier journals reach values higher than the total citation counts accumulated by papers in most of the Web of Science-indexed journals. Most of the self-citations were generated by commissioned opinion articles. The parallel world of supposedly uncitable documents flourishes and severely distorts the commonly used scientometric indicators.
  19. Siddiqui, M.A.: ¬A bibliometric study of authorship characteristics in four international information science journals (1997) 0.06 
    0.06346937 = product of:
  0.12693875 = sum of:
    0.12693875 = sum of:
      0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08539981 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 853, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=853)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 853, 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=853)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.3-23
  20. Haycock, L.A.: Citation analysis of education dissertations for collection development (2004) 0.06 
    0.06346937 = product of:
  0.12693875 = sum of:
    0.12693875 = sum of:
      0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08539981 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, 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=135)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The reference lists of forty-three education dissertations on curriculum and instruction completed at the University of Minnesota during the calendar years 2000-2002 were analyzed to inform collection development. As one measure of use of the academic library collection, the citation analysis yielded data to guide journal selection, retention, and cancellation decisions. The project aimed to ensure that the most frequently cited journals were retained on subscription. The serial monograph ratio for citation also was evaluated in comparison with other studies and explored in the context of funding ratios. Results of citation studies can provide a basis for liaison conversations with faculty in addition to guiding selection decisions. This research project can serve as a model for similar projects in other libraries that look at literature in education as well as other fields.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 410
  • el 8
  • m 3
  • s 3
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications