Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Internet"
  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003) 0.04
    0.039783288 = product of:
      0.079566576 = sum of:
        0.079566576 = product of:
          0.15913315 = sum of:
            0.15913315 = weight(_text_:journals in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.15913315 = score(doc=5176,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05109862 = queryNorm
                0.6202343 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.
  2. Vaughan, L.; Shaw, D.: Web citation data for impact assessment : a comparison of four science disciplines (2005) 0.04
    0.03558325 = product of:
      0.0711665 = sum of:
        0.0711665 = product of:
          0.142333 = sum of:
            0.142333 = weight(_text_:journals in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.142333 = score(doc=3880,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05109862 = queryNorm
                0.5547544 = fieldWeight in 3880, 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=3880)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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.
  3. Wouters, P.; Vries, R. de: Formally citing the Web (2004) 0.02
    0.024652801 = product of:
      0.049305603 = sum of:
        0.049305603 = product of:
          0.098611206 = sum of:
            0.098611206 = weight(_text_:journals in 3093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.098611206 = score(doc=3093,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05109862 = queryNorm
                0.38434514 = fieldWeight in 3093, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3093)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    How do authors refer to Web-based information sources in their formal scientific publications? It is not yet weIl known how scientists and scholars actually include new types of information sources, available through the new media, in their published work. This article reports an a comparative study of the lists of references in 38 scientific journals in five different scientific and social scientific fields. The fields are sociology, library and information science, biochemistry and biotechnology, neuroscience, and the mathematics of computing. As is weIl known, references, citations, and hyperlinks play different roles in academic publishing and communication. Our study focuses an hyperlinks as attributes of references in formal scholarly publications. The study developed and applied a method to analyze the differential roles of publishing media in the analysis of scientific and scholarly literature references. The present secondary databases that include reference and citation data (the Web of Science) cannot be used for this type of research. By the automated processing and analysis of the full text of scientific and scholarly articles, we were able to extract the references and hyperlinks contained in these references in relation to other features of the scientific and scholarly literature. Our findings show that hyperlinking references are indeed, as expected, abundantly present in the formal literature. They also tend to cite more recent literature than the average reference. The large majority of the references are to Web instances of traditional scientific journals. Other types of Web-based information sources are less weIl represented in the lists of references, except in the case of pure e-journals. We conclude that this can be explained by taking the role of the publisher into account. Indeed, it seems that the shift from print-based to electronic publishing has created new roles for the publisher. By shaping the way scientific references are hyperlinking to other information sources, the publisher may have a large impact an the availability of scientific and scholarly information.