Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Pair, C.I.: Formal evaluation methods : their utility and limitations (1995) 0.04 
    0.03998499 = product of:
  0.07996998 = sum of:
    0.07996998 = product of:
      0.15993996 = sum of:
        0.15993996 = weight(_text_:policy in 4259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15993996 = score(doc=4259,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.5864505 = fieldWeight in 4259, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4259)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Discusses evaluation techniques as an integral part of science with the emphasis on evalution for policy purposes. Outlines early attempts to validate the use of biliometric indicators. Concludes that: best results are obtained by applying a variety of methods simultaneously; reliable results can be obtained from citation analysis for purely scientific subfields such as physics; and citation analysis tends to give unreliable results for technological subjects. Concludes that bibliometrics as a technique for determining policy should never be used on its own. Describes an evaluation method used for selecting research projects for financial support, as applied by STW, the technology branch of the Netherlands' research council, NWO
  2. Wouters, P.: ¬The signs of science (1998) 0.03 
    0.032312747 = product of:
  0.064625494 = sum of:
    0.064625494 = product of:
      0.12925099 = sum of:
        0.12925099 = weight(_text_:policy in 1023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12925099 = score(doc=1023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.47392356 = fieldWeight in 1023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Since the 'Science Citation Index' emerged within the system of scientific communication in 1964, an intense controversy about its character has been raging: in what sense can citation analysis be trusted? This debate can be characterized as the confrontation of different perspectives on science. Discusses the citation representation of science: the way the citation creates a new reality of as well as in the world of science; the main features of this reality; and some implications for science and science policy
  3. Scharnhorst, A.: Citation - networks, science landscapes and evolutionary strategies (1998) 0.03 
    0.028273653 = product of:
  0.056547306 = sum of:
    0.056547306 = product of:
      0.11309461 = sum of:
        0.11309461 = weight(_text_:policy in 5126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11309461 = score(doc=5126,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.4146831 = fieldWeight in 5126, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5126)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The construction of virtual science landscapes based on citation networks and the strategic use of the information therein shed new light on the issues of the evolution of the science system and possibilities for control. Leydesdorff's approach to citation theory described in his 1998 article (see this issue of LISA) takes into account the dual layered character of communication networks and the second order nature of the science system. This perspective may help to sharpen the awareness of scientists and science policy makers for possible feedback loops within actions and activities in the science system, and probably nonlinear phenomena resulting therefrom. Sketches an additional link to geometrically oriented evolutionary theories and uses a specific landscape concept as a framework for some comments
  4. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.03 
    0.027565593 = product of:
  0.055131186 = sum of:
    0.055131186 = product of:
      0.11026237 = sum of:
        0.11026237 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11026237 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = 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
  5. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.03 
    0.027565593 = product of:
  0.055131186 = sum of:
    0.055131186 = product of:
      0.11026237 = sum of:
        0.11026237 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11026237 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, 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=4604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    7. 2.2005 14:10:22
  6. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02 
    0.024364771 = product of:
  0.048729543 = sum of:
    0.048729543 = product of:
      0.097459085 = sum of:
        0.097459085 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097459085 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = 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
  7. Leydesdorff, L.: Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations (2008) 0.02 
    0.024234561 = product of:
  0.048469122 = sum of:
    0.048469122 = product of:
      0.096938245 = sum of:
        0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 1361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096938245 = score(doc=1361,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 1361, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1361)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Aging of publications, percentage of self-citations, and impact vary from journal to journal within fields of science. The assumption that citation and publication practices are homogenous within specialties and fields of science is invalid. Furthermore, the delineation of fields and among specialties is fuzzy. Institutional units of analysis and persons may move between fields or span different specialties. The match between the citation index and institutional profiles varies among institutional units and nations. The respective matches may heavily affect the representation of the units. Non-Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) journals are increasingly cornered into transdisciplinary Mode-2 functions with the exception of specialist journals publishing in languages other than English. An externally cited impact factor can be calculated for these journals. The citation impact of non-ISI journals will be demonstrated using Science and Public Policy as the example.
  8. Brown, C.: ¬The evolution of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomers (2001) 0.02 
    0.02019547 = product of:
  0.04039094 = sum of:
    0.04039094 = product of:
      0.08078188 = sum of:
        0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08078188 = score(doc=5184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 5184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In one of two bibliometric papers in this issue Brown looks at formal publication and citation of Eprints as shown by the policies and practices of 37 top tier physics journals, and by citation trends in ISI's SciSearch database and Journal Citation Reports. Citation analysis was carried out if Eprint cites were indicated by editor response, instruction to authors sections, reports in the literature, or actual examination of citation lists. Total contribution to 12 archives and their citation counts in the journals were compiled. Of the 13 editors surveyed that responded, 8 published papers that had appeared in the archive. Two of these required removal from the archive at publication; two of the 13 did not publish papers that have appeared as Eprints. A review journal that solicits its contributions allowed citation of Eprints. Seven allowed citations to Eprints, but were less than enthusiastic.Nearly 36,000 citations were made to the 12 archives. Citations to the 37 journals and their impact factors remain constant over the period of 1991 to 1998. Eprint citations appear to peak about 3 years after appearance as do citations to published papers. Contribution to the archives, and their use as measured by citation, is clearly growing. Citation form and publishing policy varies from journal to journal.
  9. Leydesdorff, L.: Visualization of the citation impact environments of scientific journals : an online mapping exercise (2007) 0.02 
    0.02019547 = product of:
  0.04039094 = sum of:
    0.04039094 = product of:
      0.08078188 = sum of:
        0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08078188 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Aggregated journal-journal citation networks based on the Journal Citation Reports 2004 of the Science Citation Index (5,968 journals) and the Social Science Citation Index (1,712 journals) are made accessible from the perspective of any of these journals. A vector-space model Is used for normalization, and the results are brought online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr04 as input files for the visualization program Pajek. The user is thus able to analyze the citation environment in terms of links and graphs. Furthermore, the local impact of a journal is defined as its share of the total citations in the specific journal's citation environments; the vertical size of the nodes is varied proportionally to this citation impact. The horizontal size of each node can be used to provide the same information after correction for within-journal (self-)citations. In the "citing" environment, the equivalents of this measure can be considered as a citation activity index which maps how the relevant journal environment is perceived by the collective of authors of a given journal. As a policy application, the mechanism of Interdisciplinary developments among the sciences is elaborated for the case of nanotechnology journals.
  10. Joint, N.: Bemused by bibliometrics : using citation analysis to evaluate research quality (2008) 0.02 
    0.02019547 = product of:
  0.04039094 = sum of:
    0.04039094 = product of:
      0.08078188 = sum of:
        0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08078188 = score(doc=1900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which library and information science (LIS) issues have been handled in the formulation of recent UK Higher Education policy concerned with research quality evaluation. Design/methodology/approach - A chronological review of decision making about digital rights arrangements for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and of recent announcements about the new shape of metrics-based assessment in the Research Excellence Framework, which supersedes the RAE. Against this chronological framework, the likely nature of LIS practitioner reactions to the flow of decision making is suggested. Findings - It was found that a weak grasp of LIS issues by decision makers undermines the process whereby effective research evaluation models are created. LIS professional opinion should be sampled before key decisions are made. Research limitations/implications - This paper makes no sophisticated comments on the complex research issues underlying advanced bibliometric research evaluation models. It does point out that sophisticated and expensive bibliometric consultancies arrive at many conclusions about metrics-based research assessment that are common knowledge amongst LIS practitioners. Practical implications - Practical difficulties arise when one announces a decision to move to a new and specific type of research evaluation indicator before one has worked out anything very specific about that indicator. Originality/value - In this paper, the importance of information management issues to the mainstream issues of government and public administration is underlined. The most valuable conclusion of this paper is that, because LIS issues are now at the heart of democratic decision making, LIS practitioners and professionals should be given some sort of role in advising on such matters.
  11. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.02 
    0.017228495 = product of:
  0.03445699 = sum of:
    0.03445699 = product of:
      0.06891398 = sum of:
        0.06891398 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06891398 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
  12. De Bellis, N.: Bibliometrics and citation analysis : from the Science citation index to cybermetrics (2008) 0.02 
    0.016156374 = product of:
  0.032312747 = sum of:
    0.032312747 = product of:
      0.064625494 = sum of:
        0.064625494 = weight(_text_:policy in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064625494 = score(doc=3585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.23696178 = fieldWeight in 3585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Inhalt: Biblio/sciento/infor-metrics : terminological issues and early historical developments -- The empirical foundations of bibliometrics : the Science citation index -- The philosophical foundations of bibliometrics : Bernal, Merton, Price, Garfield, and Small -- The mathematical foundations of bibliometrics -- Maps and paradigms : bibliographic citations at the service of the history and sociology of science -- Impact factor and the evaluation of scientists : bibliographic citations at the service of science policy and management -- On the shoulders of dwarfs : citation as rhetorical device and the criticisms to the normative model -- Measuring scientific communication in the twentieth century : from bibliometrics to cybermetrics.
  13. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.014618864 = product of:
  0.029237729 = sum of:
    0.029237729 = product of:
      0.058475457 = sum of:
        0.058475457 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058475457 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  14. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.01 
    0.013782796 = product of:
  0.027565593 = sum of:
    0.027565593 = product of:
      0.055131186 = sum of:
        0.055131186 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055131186 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
  15. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.01 
    0.012059947 = product of:
  0.024119893 = sum of:
    0.024119893 = product of:
      0.048239786 = sum of:
        0.048239786 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048239786 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, 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=6920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
  16. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.01 
    0.012059947 = product of:
  0.024119893 = sum of:
    0.024119893 = product of:
      0.048239786 = sum of:
        0.048239786 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048239786 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, 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=5269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
  17. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.01 
    0.012059947 = product of:
  0.024119893 = sum of:
    0.024119893 = product of:
      0.048239786 = sum of:
        0.048239786 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048239786 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
  18. Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996) 0.01 
    0.010337097 = product of:
  0.020674193 = sum of:
    0.020674193 = product of:
      0.041348387 = sum of:
        0.041348387 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041348387 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
  19. Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998) 0.01 
    0.010337097 = product of:
  0.020674193 = sum of:
    0.020674193 = product of:
      0.041348387 = sum of:
        0.041348387 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041348387 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:33:24
  20. wst: Cut-and-paste-Wissenschaft (2003) 0.01 
    0.010337097 = product of:
  0.020674193 = sum of:
    0.020674193 = product of:
      0.041348387 = sum of:
        0.041348387 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041348387 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05086421 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1270, 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=1270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Mikhail Simkin und Vwani Roychowdhury von der University of Califomia, Los Angeles, haben eine in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft verbreitete Unsitte erstmals quantitativ erfasst. Die Wissenschaftler analysierten die Verbreitung von Druckfehlern in den Literaturlisten wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten (www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043). 78 Prozent aller zitierten Aufsätze - so schätzen die Forscher - haben die zitierenden Wissenschaftler demnach nicht gelesen, sondern nur per 'cut and paste' von einer Vorlage in ihre eigene Literaturliste übernommen. Das könne man beispielsweise abschätzen aus der Analyse fehlerhafter Seitenangaben in der Literaturliste eines 1973 veröffentlichten Aufsatzes über die Struktur zweidimensionaler Kristalle: Dieser Aufsatz ist rund 4300 mal zitiert worden. In 196 Fällen enthalten die Zitate jedoch Fehler in der Jahreszahl, dem Band der Zeitschrift oder der Seitenzahl, die als Indikatoren für cut and paste genommen werden können, denn man kann, obwohl es Milliarden Möglichkeiten gibt, nur 45 verschiedene Arten von Druckfehlern unterscheiden. In erster Näherung ergibt sich eine Obergrenze für die Zahl der `echten Leser' daher aus der Zahl der unterscheidbaren Druckfehler (45) geteilt durch die Gesamtzahl der Publikationen mit Druckfehler (196), das macht etwa 22 Prozent."

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 23
  • d 5

Types

  • a 27
  • el 3
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications