Search (32 results, page 1 of 2)

0.029988576 = product of:
  0.14994287 = sum of:
    0.14994287 = weight(_text_:great in 3293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14994287 = score(doc=3293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.62211907 = fieldWeight in 3293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3293)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Citing authors' names in indexes and references can cause great difficulties, as ghosts, subterfuges, and collaborative teamwork may often obscure the true begetters of published works. Presents a collection of facts and findings about authors that relate in one way or another to their names

0.026918976 = product of:
  0.13459487 = sum of:
    0.13459487 = weight(_text_:policy in 4259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13459487 = score(doc=4259,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.02399086 = product of:
  0.1199543 = sum of:
    0.1199543 = weight(_text_:great in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1199543 = score(doc=5129,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.49769527 = fieldWeight in 5129, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5129)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

States that it can be shown that claims of a lack of theories of citation are also indicative of a great need for a theory which links science dynamics and measurement. There is a wide gap between qualitative (science dynamics) and quantitative (measurement) approaches. To link them, proposes the use of the citation system, that potentially bridges a gap between measurement and epistemology, by applying system theory to the publication system

0.021753816 = product of:
  0.108769074 = sum of:
    0.108769074 = weight(_text_:policy in 1023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108769074 = score(doc=1023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.019034587 = product of:
  0.095172934 = sum of:
    0.095172934 = weight(_text_:policy in 5126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095172934 = score(doc=5126,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.016315361 = product of:
  0.0815768 = sum of:
    0.0815768 = weight(_text_:policy in 1361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0815768 = score(doc=1361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.014994288 = product of:
  0.07497144 = sum of:
    0.07497144 = weight(_text_:great in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07497144 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.

0.013596135 = product of:
  0.06798068 = sum of:
    0.06798068 = weight(_text_:policy in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06798068 = score(doc=5184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.013596135 = product of:
  0.06798068 = sum of:
    0.06798068 = weight(_text_:policy in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06798068 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.013596135 = product of:
  0.06798068 = sum of:
    0.06798068 = weight(_text_:policy in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06798068 = score(doc=1900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.013169226 = product of:
  0.06584613 = sum of:
    0.06584613 = product of:
      0.13169226 = sum of:
        0.13169226 = weight(_text_:britain in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13169226 = score(doc=6851,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3194365 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.4122643 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Much has been written about the potential and pitfalls of macroscopic Web-based link analysis, yet there have been no studies that have provided clear statistical evidence that any of the proposed calculations can produce results over large areas of the Web that correlate with phenomena external to the Internet. This article attempts to provide such evidence through an evaluation of Ingwersen's (1998) proposed external Web Impact Factor (WIF) for the original use of the Web: the interlinking of academic research. In particular, it studies the case of the relationship between academic hyperlinks and research activity for universities in Britain, a country chosen for its variety of institutions and the existence of an official government rating exercise for research. After reviewing the numerous reasons why link counts may be unreliable, it demonstrates that four different WIFs do, in fact, correlate with the conventional academic research measures. The WIF delivering the greatest correlation with research rankings was the ratio of Web pages with links pointing at research-based pages to faculty numbers. The scarcity of links to electronic academic papers in the data set suggests that, in contrast to citation analysis, this WIF is measuring the reputations of universities and their scholars, rather than the quality of their publications

0.010876908 = product of:
  0.054384537 = sum of:
    0.054384537 = weight(_text_:policy in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054384537 = score(doc=3585,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.009278951 = product of:
  0.046394754 = sum of:
    0.046394754 = product of:
      0.09278951 = sum of:
        0.09278951 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09278951 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.009278951 = product of:
  0.046394754 = sum of:
    0.046394754 = product of:
      0.09278951 = sum of:
        0.09278951 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09278951 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7. 2.2005 14:10:22

0.008201512 = product of:
  0.041007556 = sum of:
    0.041007556 = product of:
      0.08201511 = sum of:
        0.08201511 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08201511 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.0057993443 = product of:
  0.02899672 = sum of:
    0.02899672 = product of:
      0.05799344 = sum of:
        0.05799344 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05799344 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25

0.004920907 = product of:
  0.024604535 = sum of:
    0.024604535 = product of:
      0.04920907 = sum of:
        0.04920907 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04920907 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.0046394756 = product of:
  0.023197377 = sum of:
    0.023197377 = product of:
      0.046394754 = sum of:
        0.046394754 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046394754 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22

0.004059541 = product of:
  0.020297704 = sum of:
    0.020297704 = product of:
      0.04059541 = sum of:
        0.04059541 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04059541 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

16.12.2001 14:01:22

0.004059541 = product of:
  0.020297704 = sum of:
    0.020297704 = product of:
      0.04059541 = sum of:
        0.04059541 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04059541 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:20:01