Search (172 results, page 1 of 9)

0.16000941 = product of:
  0.32001883 = sum of:
    0.32001883 = sum of:
      0.2645363 = weight(_text_:publishing in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2645363 = score(doc=4654,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051188353 = queryNorm
          1.0577728 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
      0.05548252 = weight(_text_:22 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05548252 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051188353 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2017 17:12:50

LCSH

Scholarly publishing / Evaluation
Scholarly electronic publishing / Evaluation

RSWK

Scholarly electronic publishing -- Evaluation

Subject

Scholarly electronic publishing -- Evaluation
Scholarly publishing / Evaluation
Scholarly electronic publishing / Evaluation

0.07152206 = product of:
  0.14304411 = sum of:
    0.14304411 = sum of:
      0.09449691 = weight(_text_:publishing in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09449691 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051188353 = queryNorm
          0.37785465 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
      0.048547205 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048547205 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051188353 = 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

0.06130463 = product of:
  0.12260926 = sum of:
    0.12260926 = sum of:
      0.08099736 = weight(_text_:publishing in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08099736 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051188353 = queryNorm
          0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
      0.04161189 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04161189 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051188353 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:14

0.051087186 = product of:
  0.10217437 = sum of:
    0.10217437 = sum of:
      0.0674978 = weight(_text_:publishing in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0674978 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051188353 = queryNorm
          0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.034676578 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034676578 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051188353 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

0.04091837 = product of:
  0.08183674 = sum of:
    0.08183674 = product of:
      0.16367348 = sum of:
        0.16367348 = weight(_text_:publishing in 2860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16367348 = score(doc=2860,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.6544635 = fieldWeight in 2860, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2860)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

0.039039865 = product of:
  0.07807973 = sum of:
    0.07807973 = sum of:
      0.057273783 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057273783 = score(doc=3809,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051188353 = queryNorm
          0.22901452 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.020805946 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020805946 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051188353 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).
There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.03507289 = product of:
  0.07014578 = sum of:
    0.07014578 = product of:
      0.14029156 = sum of:
        0.14029156 = weight(_text_:publishing in 4458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14029156 = score(doc=4458,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.56096876 = fieldWeight in 4458, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4458)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article1 describes the possibilities to analyze open access (OA) publishing in the Netherlands in an international comparative way. OA publishing is now actively stimulated by Dutch science policy, similar to the United Kingdom. We conducted a bibliometric baseline measurement to assess the current situation, to be able to measure developments over time. We collected data from various sources, and for three different smaller European countries (the Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland). Not all of the analyses for this baseline measurement are included here. The analysis presented in this article focuses on the various ways OA can be defined using the Web of Science, limiting the analysis mainly to Gold OA. From the data we collected we can conclude that the way OA is currently registered in various electronic bibliographic databases is quite unclear, and various methods applied deliver results that are different, although the impact scores derived from the data point in the same direction.

0.029227406 = product of:
  0.05845481 = sum of:
    0.05845481 = product of:
      0.11690962 = sum of:
        0.11690962 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11690962 = score(doc=1228,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.46747392 = fieldWeight in 1228, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Previous research indicates that during the past 20 years, the highest-quality work has been published in an increasingly diverse and larger group of journals. In this article, we examine whether this diversification has also affected the handful of elite journals that are traditionally considered to be the best. We examine citation patterns during the past 40 years of seven long-standing traditionally elite journals and six journals that have been increasing in importance during the past 20 years. To be among the top 5% or 1% cited papers, papers now need about twice as many citations as they did 40 years ago. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, elite journals have been publishing a decreasing proportion of these top-cited papers. This also applies to the two journals that are typically considered as the top venues and often used as bibliometric indicators of "excellence": Science and Nature. On the other hand, several new and established journals are publishing an increasing proportion of the most-cited papers. These changes bring new challenges and opportunities for all parties. Journals can enact policies to increase or maintain their relative position in the journal hierarchy. Researchers now have the option to publish in more diverse venues knowing that their work can still reach the same audiences. Finally, evaluators and administrators need to know that although there will always be a certain prestige associated with publishing in "elite" journals, journal hierarchies are in constant flux.

0.028636891 = product of:
  0.057273783 = sum of:
    0.057273783 = product of:
      0.114547566 = sum of:
        0.114547566 = weight(_text_:publishing in 332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114547566 = score(doc=332,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.45802903 = fieldWeight in 332, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=332)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

WWW and related information technologies are transforming the distribution of scientific and technical information (STI). We examine 11 recent, functioning digital libraries focusing on the distribution of STI publications, including journal articles, conference papers, and technical reports. We introduce 4 main categories of digital library projects: based on the architecture (distributed vs. centralized) and the contributor (traditional publisher vs. authoring individual / organization). Many digital library prototypes merely automate existing publishing practices or focus solely on the digitization of the publishing practices cycle output, not sampling and capturing elements of the input. Still others do not consider for distribution the large body of 'gray literature'. We address these deficiencies in the current model of STI exchange by suggesting methods for expanding the scope and target of digital libraries by focusing on a greater source of technical publications and using 'buckets', an object-oriented construct for grouping logically related information objects, to include holdings other than technical publications

0.028636891 = product of:
  0.057273783 = sum of:
    0.057273783 = product of:
      0.114547566 = sum of:
        0.114547566 = weight(_text_:publishing in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114547566 = score(doc=2299,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.45802903 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How does publication pressure in modern-day universities affect the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in science? By using a worldwide survey among demographers in developed and developing countries, the authors show that the large majority perceive the publication pressure as high, but more so in Anglo-Saxon countries and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. However, scholars see both the pros (upward mobility) and cons (excessive publication and uncitedness, neglect of policy issues, etc.) of the so-called publish-or-perish culture. By measuring behavior in terms of reading and publishing, and perceived extrinsic rewards and stated intrinsic rewards of practicing science, it turns out that publication pressure negatively affects the orientation of demographers towards policy and knowledge sharing. There are no signs that the pressure affects reading and publishing outside the core discipline.

0.028636891 = product of:
  0.057273783 = sum of:
    0.057273783 = product of:
      0.114547566 = sum of:
        0.114547566 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114547566 = score(doc=1249,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.45802903 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study analyzes coauthorship patterns in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) for the period 2000 to 2010. The basis for the analysis is the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities (VABB-SHW), a comprehensive bibliographic database of peer-reviewed publications in the SSH by researchers affiliated with Flemish universities. Combining data on journal articles and book chapters, our findings indicate that collaborative publishing in the SSH is increasing, though considerable differences between disciplines remain. Conversely, we did observe a sharp decline in single-author publishing. We further demonstrate that coauthored SSH articles in journals indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) generally have a higher (and growing) number of coauthors than do either those in non-WoS journals or book chapters. This illustrates the need to include non-WoS data and book chapters when studying coauthorship in the SSH.

0.02774126 = product of:
  0.05548252 = sum of:
    0.05548252 = product of:
      0.11096504 = sum of:
        0.11096504 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11096504 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419

0.02774126 = product of:
  0.05548252 = sum of:
    0.05548252 = product of:
      0.11096504 = sum of:
        0.11096504 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11096504 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.02774126 = product of:
  0.05548252 = sum of:
    0.05548252 = product of:
      0.11096504 = sum of:
        0.11096504 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11096504 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22

0.02699912 = product of:
  0.05399824 = sum of:
    0.05399824 = product of:
      0.10799648 = sum of:
        0.10799648 = weight(_text_:publishing in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10799648 = score(doc=4487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.4318339 = fieldWeight in 4487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A bibliometric method for analyzing and visualizing national research profiles is adapted to describe national preferences for publishing particular document types. Similarities in national profiles and national peculiarities are discussed based on the publication output of the 26 most active countries indexed in the Web of Science annual volume 2007.

0.024520041 = product of:
  0.049040083 = sum of:
    0.049040083 = product of:
      0.098080166 = sum of:
        0.098080166 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098080166 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, 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=3690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:22:35

0.024520041 = product of:
  0.049040083 = sum of:
    0.049040083 = product of:
      0.098080166 = sum of:
        0.098080166 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098080166 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, 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=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.024273602 = product of:
  0.048547205 = sum of:
    0.048547205 = product of:
      0.09709441 = sum of:
        0.09709441 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09709441 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)

0.024273602 = product of:
  0.048547205 = sum of:
    0.048547205 = product of:
      0.09709441 = sum of:
        0.09709441 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09709441 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:29

0.024273602 = product of:
  0.048547205 = sum of:
    0.048547205 = product of:
      0.09709441 = sum of:
        0.09709441 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09709441 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:55