Search (209 results, page 1 of 11)

0.071180545 = product of:
  0.21354163 = sum of:
    0.21354163 = sum of:
      0.1026951 = weight(_text_:management in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1026951 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.5958457 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.110846534 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.110846534 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

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

0.05644048 = product of:
  0.08466072 = sum of:
    0.063876994 = weight(_text_:resources in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.063876994 = score(doc=102,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.34221917 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
    0.020783724 = product of:
      0.04156745 = sum of:
        0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04156745 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 102, 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=102)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

University librarians continue to face the difficult task of determining which journals remain crucial for their collections during these times of static financial resources and escalating journal costs. One evaluative tool, Journal Citation Reports (JCR), recently has become available on CD-ROM, making it simpler for librarians to use its citation data as input for ranking journals. But many librarians remain unconvinced that the global citation data from the JCR bears enough correspondence to their local situation to be useful. In this project, I explore the correlation between global citation data available from JCR with local citation data generated specifically for the University of British Columbia, for 20 subject fields in the sciences and social sciences. The significant correlations obtained in this study suggest that large research-oriented university libraries could consider substituting global citation data for local citation data when evaluating their journals, with certain cautions.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 43(1999) no.2, S.67-77

0.0541602 = product of:
  0.0812403 = sum of:
    0.06519419 = weight(_text_:resources in 3094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06519419 = score(doc=3094,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.349276 = fieldWeight in 3094, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3094)
    0.016046109 = product of:
      0.032092217 = sum of:
        0.032092217 = weight(_text_:management in 3094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032092217 = score(doc=3094,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 3094, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3094)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

University libraries provide access to thousands of online journals and other content, spending millions of dollars annually on these electronic resources. Providing access to these online resources is costly, and it is difficult both to analyze the value of this content to the institution and to discern those journals that comparatively provide more value. In this research, we examine 1,510 journals from a large research university library, representing more than 40% of the university's annual subscription cost for electronic resources at the time of the study. We utilize a web analytics approach for the creation of a linear regression model to predict usage among these journals. We categorize metrics into two classes: global (journal focused) and local (institution dependent). Using 275 journals for our training set, our analysis shows that a combination of global and local metrics creates the strongest model for predicting full-text downloads. Our linear regression model has an accuracy of more than 80% in predicting downloads for the 1,235 journals in our test set. The implications of the findings are that university libraries that use local metrics have better insight into the value of a journal and therefore more efficient cost content management.

0.054015677 = product of:
  0.081023514 = sum of:
    0.053230833 = weight(_text_:resources in 2705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053230833 = score(doc=2705,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28518265 = fieldWeight in 2705, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2705)
    0.027792677 = product of:
      0.055585355 = sum of:
        0.055585355 = weight(_text_:management in 2705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055585355 = score(doc=2705,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.32251096 = fieldWeight in 2705, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2705)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The multidisciplinary character of the theories supporting research in the discipline of human resources management (HRM), the increasing importance of a more rigorous approach to HRM studies by academics, and the impact of HRM on the competitive advantage of firms are just some of the indicators demonstrating the relevance of this discipline in the broader field of the social sciences. These developments explain why a quantitative analysis of HRM studies based on bibliometric techniques is particularly opportune. The general objective of this article is to analyze the intellectual structure of the HRM discipline; this can be divided into two specific objectives. The first is to identify the most frequently cited studies, with the purpose of identifying the key topics of research in the HRM discipline. The second objective is to represent the networks of relationships between the most-cited studies, grouping them under common themes, with the object of providing a diagrammatic description of the knowledge base constituted by accumulated works of research in the HRM field. The methodology utilized is based on the bibliometric techniques of citation analysis.

0.05181646 = product of:
  0.07772469 = sum of:
    0.053230833 = weight(_text_:resources in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053230833 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28518265 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
    0.024493856 = product of:
      0.048987713 = sum of:
        0.048987713 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048987713 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Internet based electronic resources are growing dramatically but there have been no empirical studies evaluating the impact of e-sources, as a whole, on formal scholarly communication. reports results of an investigation into how much e-sources have been used in formal scholarly communication, using a case study in the area of Library and Information Science (LIS) during the period 1994 to 1996. 4 citation based indicators were used in the study of the impact measurement. Concludes that, compared with the impact of print sources, the impact of e-sources on formal scholarly communication in LIS is small, as measured by e-sources cited, and does not increase significantly by year even though there is observable growth of these impact across the years. It is found that periodical format is related to the rate of citing e-sources, articles are more likely to cite e-sources than are print priodical articles. However, once authors cite electronic resource, there is no significant difference in the number of references per article by periodical format or by year. Suggests that, at this stage, citing e-sources may depend on authors rather than the periodical format in which authors choose to publish

Date

30. 1.1999 17:22:22

0.050106924 = product of:
  0.075160384 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 5485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=5485,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 5485, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5485)
    0.022464553 = product of:
      0.044929106 = sum of:
        0.044929106 = weight(_text_:management in 5485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044929106 = score(doc=5485,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 5485, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5485)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.04488818 = product of:
  0.13466454 = sum of:
    0.13466454 = weight(_text_:resources in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13466454 = score(doc=5766,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.7214614 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

How are library professionals who do research about bibliographic organization using electronic resources (e-resources) in their journal articles? Are they keeping pace with the use of e-resources outside the library world? What are the e-resources most used in their research? This article aims to address these and other questions by analyzing bibliographical references/notes in articles in Cataloging and Classification Quarterly (CCQ) for every other year from 1994 to 2004.

0.04396772 = product of:
  0.06595158 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
    0.020783724 = product of:
      0.04156745 = sum of:
        0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04156745 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, 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=135)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 48(2004) no.2, S.102-106

0.04396772 = product of:
  0.06595158 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.020783724 = product of:
      0.04156745 = sum of:
        0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04156745 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.042948794 = product of:
  0.06442319 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
    0.01925533 = product of:
      0.03851066 = sum of:
        0.03851066 = weight(_text_:management in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03851066 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The authors propose a bibliometric model for discarding journal volumes at academic libraries, i.e., removal to offsite storage as part of the library's serials collection. The method is based an the volume as the unit of measurement and an user satisfaction with given titles. The discarding age, calculated for each volume, from the year of publication to the year of decision to discard, is dependent an citation half-life, relative productivity, knowledge area, and residual utility (potential consultations). The model makes it possible to predict the approximate size of a collection when a stationary state is reached in which the inflow of journal volumes is equal to the outflow from discarding. The model is also able to determine the rate of growth of the holdings. This information can be used to optimize future use of available space and economic and maintenance resources; thus promoting efficient management of the collection.

0.042948794 = product of:
  0.06442319 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=2735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 2735, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2735)
    0.01925533 = product of:
      0.03851066 = sum of:
        0.03851066 = weight(_text_:management in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03851066 = score(doc=2735,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2735, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A substantial amount of research has focused on the persistence or availability of Web citations. The present study analyzes Web citation distributions. Web citations are defined as the mentions of the URLs of Web pages (Web resources) as references in academic papers. The present paper primarily focuses on the analysis of the URLs of Web citations and uses three sets of data, namely, Set 1 from the Humanities and Social Science Index in China (CSSCI, 1998-2009), Set 2 from the publications of two international computer science societies, Communications of the ACM and IEEE Computer (1995-1999), and Set 3 from the medical science database, MEDLINE, of the National Library of Medicine (1994-2006). Web citation distributions are investigated based on Web site types, Web page types, URL frequencies, URL depths, URL lengths, and year of article publication. Results show significant differences in the Web citation distributions among the three data sets. However, when the URLs of Web citations with the same hostnames are aggregated, the distributions in the three data sets are consistent with the power law (the Lotka function).

Source

Information processing and management. 48(2012) no.4, S.779-790

0.040221673 = product of:
  0.060332507 = sum of:
    0.037639882 = weight(_text_:resources in 3165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037639882 = score(doc=3165,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 3165, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3165)
    0.022692626 = product of:
      0.045385253 = sum of:
        0.045385253 = weight(_text_:management in 3165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045385253 = score(doc=3165,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 3165, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3165)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to show how bibliometrics would benefit from a stronger programme of construct validity. Design/methodology/approach The value of the construct validity concept is demonstrated by applying this approach to the evaluation of the h-index, a widely used metric. Findings The paper demonstrates that the h-index comprehensively fails any test of construct validity. In simple terms, the metric does not measure what it purports to measure. This conclusion suggests that the current popularity of the h-index as a topic for bibliometric research represents wasted effort, which might have been avoided if researchers had adopted the approach suggested in this paper. Research limitations/implications This study is based on the analysis of a single bibliometric concept. Practical implications The conclusion that the h-index fails any test in terms of construct validity implies that the widespread use of this metric within the higher education sector as a management tool represents poor practice, and almost certainly results in the misallocation of resources. Social implications This paper suggests that the current enthusiasm for the h-index within the higher education sector is misplaced. The implication is that universities, grant funding bodies and faculty administrators should abandon the use of the h-index as a management tool. Such a change would have a significant effect on current hiring, promotion and tenure practices within the sector, as well as current attitudes towards the measurement of academic performance. Originality/value The originality of the paper lies in the systematic application of the concept of construct validity to bibliometric enquiry.

0.03952959 = product of:
  0.118588775 = sum of:
    0.118588775 = sum of:
      0.07702132 = weight(_text_:management in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07702132 = score(doc=994,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.44688427 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
      0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04156745 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.

Date

26.12.2007 19:22:05

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.6, S.1451-1464

0.037344903 = product of:
  0.11203471 = sum of:
    0.11203471 = sum of:
      0.06353935 = weight(_text_:management in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06353935 = score(doc=3689,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.36866072 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
      0.04849536 = weight(_text_:22 in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04849536 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3689, 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=3689)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Context analysis is a new method for appraising a body of publications. the process consists of creating a database of attributes assigned to each paper by the reviewer and then looking for interesting relationships in the data. Assigning the attributes requires an understanding of the subject matter of the papers. Presents findings about one particular research field, Management of R&D at the Section Level. The findings support the view that this body of academic publications does not meet the needs of practitioner R&D managers. Discusses practical aspects of how to apply the method in other fields

Date

22. 5.1999 19:18:46

0.036639772 = product of:
  0.054959655 = sum of:
    0.037639882 = weight(_text_:resources in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037639882 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
    0.017319772 = product of:
      0.034639545 = sum of:
        0.034639545 = weight(_text_:22 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034639545 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2759, 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=2759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The representation of science as a citation density landscape and the study of scaling rules with the field-specific citation density as a main topological property was previously analyzed at the level of research groups. Here, the focus is on the individual researcher. In this new analysis, the size dependence of several main bibliometric indicators for a large set of individual researchers is explored. Similar results as those previously observed for research groups are described for individual researchers. The total number of citations received by scientists increases in a cumulatively advantageous way as a function of size (in terms of number of publications) for researchers in three areas: Natural Resources, Biology & Biomedicine, and Materials Science. This effect is stronger for researchers in low citation density fields. Differences found among thematic areas with different citation densities are discussed.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:02:48

0.031457655 = product of:
  0.094372965 = sum of:
    0.094372965 = sum of:
      0.045385253 = weight(_text_:management in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045385253 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
      0.048987713 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048987713 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.1, S.27-54

0.028055113 = product of:
  0.084165335 = sum of:
    0.084165335 = weight(_text_:resources in 53) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084165335 = score(doc=53,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.45091337 = fieldWeight in 53, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=53)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The essential purpose of this paper is to measure the amount of web resources used for scholarly contributions in the area of library and information science (LIS) in India. It further aims to make an analysis of the nature and type of web resources and studies the various standards for web citations. Design/methodology/approach - In this study, the result of analysis of 292 web citations spread over 95 scholarly papers published in the proceedings of the National Conference of the Society for Information Science, India (SIS-2005) has been reported. All the 292 web citations were scanned and data relating to types of web domains, file formats, styles of citations, etc., were collected through a structured check list. The data thus obtained were systematically analyzed, figurative representations were made and appropriate interpretations were drawn. Findings - The study revealed that 292 (34.88 per cent) out of 837 were web citations, proving a significant correlation between the use of Internet resources and research productivity of LIS professionals in India. The highest number of web citations (35.6 per cent) was from .edu/.ac type domains. Most of the web resources (46.9 per cent) cited in the study were hypertext markup language (HTML) files. Originality/value - The paper is the result of an original analysis of web citations undertaken in order to study the dependence of LIS professionals in India on web sources for their scholarly contributions. This carries research value for web content providers, authors and researchers in LIS.

0.028055113 = product of:
  0.084165335 = sum of:
    0.084165335 = weight(_text_:resources in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084165335 = score(doc=611,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.45091337 = fieldWeight in 611, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=611)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Citation and content analyses of eight American Chemical Society (ACS) journals in a range of fields of chemistry were used to describe the use of Web-based information resources by the authors and readers of the scholarly literature of chemistry. The analyses indicate that even though the number of Web-based information resources has grown steadily over the past decade, chemists are not taking full advantage of freely available Web-based resources. They are, however, making use of the ACS Electronic Supporting Information archive. The content of the Web-based resources that are used is primarily text based, and the URLs are provided in the articles' reference lists and experimental sections. The presence of a reference to a Web-based resource in a chemistry article does not influence its rate of citation, even though the viability of the URLs was found to erode with time. Comparison of citation and online access data reveals that at the highest levels of citation, articles also garner high levels of online access. This was especially true for articles describing a technique or methodology. Even though chemists do not incorporate large numbers of freely available Web-based resources into their publications, an increasingly important component of a chemist's information behavior for the direct support of his or her research is unfettered bench-top access via the Web.

0.026692703 = product of:
  0.08007811 = sum of:
    0.08007811 = sum of:
      0.03851066 = weight(_text_:management in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03851066 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
      0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04156745 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Patent analysis has become important for management as it offers timely and valuable information to evaluate R&D performance and identify the prospects of patents. This study explores the scattering patterns of patent impact based on citations in 3 distinct technological areas, the liquid crystal, semiconductor, and drug technological areas, to identify the core patents in each area. The research follows the approach from Bradford's law, which equally divides total citations into 3 zones. While the result suggests that the scattering of patent citations corresponded with features of Bradford's law, the proportion of patents in the 3 zones did not match the proportion as proposed by the law. As a result, the study shows that the distributions of citations in all 3 areas were more concentrated than what Bradford's law proposed. The Groos (1967) droop was also presented by the scattering of patent citations, and the growth rate of cumulative citation decreased in the third zone.

Date

22. 8.2014 17:11:29

0.026692703 = product of:
  0.08007811 = sum of:
    0.08007811 = sum of:
      0.03851066 = weight(_text_:management in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03851066 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2586, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2586)
      0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04156745 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2586, 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=2586)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.1, S.55-73