Search (880 results, page 1 of 44)

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

0.120120615 = product of:
  0.24024123 = sum of:
    0.24024123 = sum of:
      0.142333 = weight(_text_:journals in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.142333 = score(doc=3582,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.5547544 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.09790823 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09790823 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ein Statistikprofessor im Ruhestand beweist eine berühmte mathematische Vermutung über mehrdimensionale Normalverteilungen - und findet kaum Anklang, weil er nicht in den großen Journals publiziert.

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

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.

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

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

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

0.08115815 = product of:
  0.1623163 = sum of:
    0.1623163 = product of:
      0.4869489 = sum of:
        0.4869489 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4869489 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43321466 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.07080978 = product of:
  0.14161956 = sum of:
    0.14161956 = product of:
      0.28323913 = sum of:
        0.28323913 = weight(_text_:journals in 365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.28323913 = score(doc=365,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            1.1039474 = fieldWeight in 365, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Article processing charges (APCs) are a central mechanism for funding open access (OA) scholarly publishing. We studied the APCs charged and article volumes of journals that were listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals as charging APCs. These included 1,370 journals that published 100,697 articles in 2010. The average APC was $906 U.S. dollars (USD) calculated over journals and $904 USD calculated over articles. The price range varied between $8 and $3,900 USD, with the lowest prices charged by journals published in developing countries and the highest by journals with high-impact factors from major international publishers. Journals in biomedicine represent 59% of the sample and 58% of the total article volume. They also had the highest APCs of any discipline. Professionally published journals, both for profit and nonprofit, had substantially higher APCs than journals published by societies, universities, or scholars/researchers. These price estimates are lower than some previous studies of OA publishing and much lower than is generally charged by subscription publishers making individual articles OA in what are termed hybrid journals.

0.067631796 = product of:
  0.13526359 = sum of:
    0.13526359 = product of:
      0.40579078 = sum of:
        0.40579078 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.40579078 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43321466 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

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

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

0.06763022 = product of:
  0.13526043 = sum of:
    0.13526043 = sum of:
      0.10064465 = weight(_text_:journals in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10064465 = score(doc=3089,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.39227062 = fieldWeight in 3089, 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=3089)
      0.03461579 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03461579 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3089, 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=3089)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Climate change as a complex physical and social issue has gained increasing attention in the natural as well as the social sciences. Climate change research has become more interdisciplinary and even transdisciplinary as a typical Mode-2 science that is also dependent on an application context for its further development. We propose to approach interdisciplinarity as a co-construction of the knowledge base in the reference patterns and the programmatic focus in the editorials in the core journal of the climate-change sciences-Climatic Change-during the period 1977-2013. First, we analyze the knowledge base of the journal and map journal-journal relations on the basis of the references in the articles. Second, we follow the development of the programmatic focus by analyzing the semantics in the editorials. We argue that interdisciplinarity is a result of the co-construction between different agendas: The selection of publications into the knowledge base of the journal, and the adjustment of the programmatic focus to the political context in the editorials. Our results show a widening of the knowledge base from referencing the multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science to citing journals from specialist fields. The programmatic focus follows policy-oriented issues and incorporates public metaphors.

Date

24. 8.2016 17:53:22

0.06751448 = product of:
  0.13502896 = sum of:
    0.13502896 = product of:
      0.27005792 = sum of:
        0.27005792 = weight(_text_:journals in 2040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27005792 = score(doc=2040,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            1.0525725 = fieldWeight in 2040, 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=2040)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many open access journals have a reputation for being of low quality and being dishonest with regard to peer review and publishing costs. Such journals are labeled "predatory" journals. This study examines author profiles for some of these "predatory" journals as well as for groups of more well-recognized open access journals. We collect and analyze the publication record, citation count, and geographic location of authors from the various groups of journals. Statistical analyses verify that each group of journals has a distinct author population. Those who publish in "predatory" journals are, for the most part, young and inexperienced researchers from developing countries. We believe that economic and sociocultural conditions in these developing countries have contributed to the differences found in authorship between "predatory" and "nonpredatory" journals.

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.

0.06365326 = product of:
  0.12730652 = sum of:
    0.12730652 = product of:
      0.25461304 = sum of:
        0.25461304 = weight(_text_:journals in 1140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25461304 = score(doc=1140,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.9923749 = fieldWeight in 1140, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1140)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Many authors appear to think that most open access (OA) journals charge authors for their publications. This brief communication examines the basis for such beliefs and finds it wanting. Indeed, in this study of over 9,000 OA journals included in the Directory of Open Access Journals, only 28% charged authors for publishing in their journals. This figure, however, was highest in various disciplines in medicine (47%) and the sciences (43%) and lowest in the humanities (4%) and the arts (0%).

0.06346937 = product of:
  0.12693875 = sum of:
    0.12693875 = sum of:
      0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08539981 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is a study of coverage and overlap in second-generation social sciences and humanities journal lists, with attention paid to curation and the judgment of scholarliness. We identify four factors underpinning coverage shortfalls: journal language, country, publisher size, and age. Analyzing these factors turns our attention to the process of assessing a journal as scholarly, which is a necessary foundation for every list of scholarly journals. Although scholarliness should be a quality inherent in the journal, coverage falls short because groups assessing scholarliness have different perspectives on the social sciences and humanities literature. That the four factors shape perspectives on the literature points to a deeper problem of fragmentation within the scholarly community. We propose reducing this fragmentation as the best method to reduce coverage shortfalls.

Date

22. 1.2011 13:21:28

0.06346937 = product of:
  0.12693875 = sum of:
    0.12693875 = sum of:
      0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 1470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08539981 = score(doc=1470,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 1470, 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=1470)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 1470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=1470,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1470, 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=1470)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Characteristics of terms used in library science literature, extracted from two journals in the field in English and two in Spanish, were studied and analyzed. The particular area chosen was thematic indexing. Each term was placed in its respective knowledge field according to specialized dictionaries and thesauri, as well as experts consulted. Results produced from the research include: terms that differ from the entry in library science dictionaries but whose meaning in that source coincides with dictionaries from other specialties consulted; terms that are represented but don't have the meaning from the other knowledge fields where they emerged; terms without the corresponding definition but that refer to an equivalent entry; terms that are not included, and legally protected terms.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.06346937 = product of:
  0.12693875 = sum of:
    0.12693875 = sum of:
      0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08539981 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.

0.06346937 = product of:
  0.12693875 = sum of:
    0.12693875 = sum of:
      0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08539981 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
      0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041538943 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Counts of tweets and Mendeley user libraries have been proposed as altmetric alternatives to citation counts for the impact assessment of articles. Although both have been investigated to discover whether they correlate with article citations, it is not known whether users tend to tweet or save (in Mendeley) the same kinds of articles that they cite. In response, this article compares pairs of articles that are tweeted, saved to a Mendeley library, or cited by the same user, but possibly a different user for each source. The study analyzes 1,131,318 articles published in 2012, with minimum tweeted (10), saved to Mendeley (100), and cited (10) thresholds. The results show surprisingly minor overall overlaps between the three phenomena. The importance of journals for Twitter and the presence of many bots at different levels of activity suggest that this site has little value for impact altmetrics. The moderate differences between patterns of saving and citation suggest that Mendeley can be used for some types of impact assessments, but sensitivity is needed for underlying differences.

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

0.06193208 = product of:
  0.12386416 = sum of:
    0.12386416 = sum of:
      0.099633105 = weight(_text_:journals in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.099633105 = score(doc=2597,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.38832808 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
      0.02423105 = weight(_text_:22 in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02423105 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the author self-citation behavior in the field of Library and Information Science. Various factors governing the author self-citation behavior have also been studied. Design/methodology/approach The 2012 edition of Social Science Citation Index was consulted for the selection of LIS journals. Under the subject heading "Information Science and Library Science" there were 84 journals and out of these 12 journals were selected for the study based on systematic sampling. The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in select journals in the year 2009. The main reason to choose 2009 was to get at least five years (2009-2013) citation data from Web of Science Core Collection (excluding Book Citation Index) and SciELO Citation Index. A citation was treated as self-citation whenever one of the authors of citing and cited paper was common, i.e., the set of co-authors of the citing paper and that of the cited one are not disjoint. To minimize the risk of homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors' names, the authors compared full author names in citing and cited articles. Findings A positive correlation between number of authors and total number of citations exists with no correlation between number of authors and number/share of self-citations, i.e., self-citations are not affected by the number of co-authors in a paper. Articles which are produced in collaboration attract more self-citations than articles produced by only one author. There is no statistically significant variation in citations counts (total and self-citations) in works that are result of different types of collaboration. A strong and statistically significant positive correlation exists between total citation count and frequency of self-citations. No relation could be ascertained between total citation count and proportion of self-citations. Authors tend to cite more of their recent works than the work of other authors. Total citation count and number of self-citations are positively correlated with the impact factor of source publication and correlation coefficient for total citations is much higher than that for self-citations. A negative correlation exhibits between impact factor and the share of self-citations. Of particular note is that the correlation in all the cases is of weak nature. Research limitations/implications The research provides an understanding of the author self-citations in the field of LIS. readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study. Originality/value Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22