Search (85 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × author_ss:"Leydesdorff, L."
  1. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011) 0.03 
    0.029842142 = product of:
  0.059684284 = sum of:
    0.04386112 = weight(_text_:science in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04386112 = score(doc=4186,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
    0.015823163 = product of:
      0.031646326 = sum of:
        0.031646326 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031646326 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.217-229
  2. Leydesdorff, L.: Can networks of journal-journal citations be used as indicators of change in the social sciences? (2003) 0.03 
    0.028102597 = product of:
  0.056205194 = sum of:
    0.0372174 = weight(_text_:science in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0372174 = score(doc=4460,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
    0.018987793 = product of:
      0.037975587 = sum of:
        0.037975587 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037975587 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Aggregated journal-journal citations can be used for mapping the intellectual organization of the sciences in terms of specialties because the latter can be considered as interreading communities. Can the journal-journal citations also be used as early indicators of change by comparing the files for two subsequent years? Probabilistic entropy measures enable us to analyze changes in large datasets at different levels of aggregation and in considerable detail. Compares Journal Citation Reports of the Social Science Citation Index for 1999 with similar data for 1998 and analyzes the differences using these measures. Compares the various indicators with similar developments in the Science Citation Index. Specialty formation seems a more important mechanism in the development of the social sciences than in the natural and life sciences, but the developments in the social sciences are volatile. The use of aggregate statistics based on the Science Citation Index is ill-advised in the case of the social sciences because of structural differences in the underlying dynamics.
    Date
    6.11.2005 19:02:22
  3. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.02 
    0.024687836 = product of:
  0.049375672 = sum of:
    0.030387878 = weight(_text_:science in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030387878 = score(doc=4681,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
    0.018987793 = product of:
      0.037975587 = sum of:
        0.037975587 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037975587 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.198-201
  4. Hellsten, I.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The construction of interdisciplinarity : the development of the knowledge base and programmatic focus of the journal Climatic Change, 1977-2013 (2016) 0.02 
    0.02341883 = product of:
  0.04683766 = sum of:
    0.031014498 = weight(_text_:science in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031014498 = score(doc=3089,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
    0.015823163 = product of:
      0.031646326 = sum of:
        0.031646326 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031646326 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Climate change as a complex physical and social issue has gained increasing attention in the natural as well as the social sciences. Climate change research has become more interdisciplinary and even transdisciplinary as a typical Mode-2 science that is also dependent on an application context for its further development. We propose to approach interdisciplinarity as a co-construction of the knowledge base in the reference patterns and the programmatic focus in the editorials in the core journal of the climate-change sciences-Climatic Change-during the period 1977-2013. First, we analyze the knowledge base of the journal and map journal-journal relations on the basis of the references in the articles. Second, we follow the development of the programmatic focus by analyzing the semantics in the editorials. We argue that interdisciplinarity is a result of the co-construction between different agendas: The selection of publications into the knowledge base of the journal, and the adjustment of the programmatic focus to the political context in the editorials. Our results show a widening of the knowledge base from referencing the multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science to citing journals from specialist fields. The programmatic focus follows policy-oriented issues and incorporates public metaphors.
    Date
    24. 8.2016 17:53:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.9, S.2181-2193
  5. Leydesdorff, L.; Sun, Y.: National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan : university-industry-government versus international coauthorship relations (2009) 0.02 
    0.020237632 = product of:
  0.040475264 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
    0.018987793 = product of:
      0.037975587 = sum of:
        0.037975587 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037975587 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2761, 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=2761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:07:20
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.778-788
  6. Leydesdorff, L.; Johnson, M.W.; Ivanova, I.: Toward a calculus of redundancy : signification, codification, and anticipation in cultural evolution (2018) 0.02 
    0.016864695 = product of:
  0.03372939 = sum of:
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
    0.015823163 = product of:
      0.031646326 = sum of:
        0.031646326 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031646326 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    29. 9.2018 11:22:09
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.10, S.1181-1192
  7. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: ¬The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics : the cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology studies" (2016) 0.02 
    0.015193939 = product of:
  0.060775757 = sum of:
    0.060775757 = weight(_text_:science in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060775757 = score(doc=2779,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.49389738 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.
    Aid
    Web of Science
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.707-714
  8. Leydesdorff, L.; Bihui, J.: Mapping the Chinese Science Citation Database in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations (2005) 0.01 
    0.014212629 = product of:
  0.056850515 = sum of:
    0.056850515 = weight(_text_:science in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056850515 = score(doc=4813,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.4619987 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Methods developed for mapping the journal structure contained in aggregated journal-journal citations in the Science Citation Index (SCI; Thomson ISI, 2002) are applied to the Chinese Science Citation Database of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. This database covered 991 journals in 2001, of which only 37 originally had English titles; only 31 of which were covered by the SCI. Using factor-analytical and graph-analytical techniques, the authors show that the journal relations are dually structured. The main structure is the intellectual organization of the journals in journal groups (as in the international SCI), but the university-based journals provide an institutional layer that orients this structure towards practical ends (e.g., agriculture). This mechanism of integration is further distinguished from the role of general science journals. The Chinese Science Citation Database thus exhibits the characteristics of "Mode 2" or transdisciplinary science in the production of scientific knowledge more than its Western counterpart does. The contexts of application lead to correlation among the components.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.14, S.1469-1479
  9. Zhou, P.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬A comparison between the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database and the Science Citation Index in terms of journal hierarchies and interjournal citation relations (2007) 0.01 
    0.012011863 = product of:
  0.048047453 = sum of:
    0.048047453 = weight(_text_:science in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048047453 = score(doc=70,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The journal structure in the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database (CSTPCD) is analyzed from three perspectives: the database level, the specialty level, and the institutional level (i.e., university journals vs. journals issued by the Chinese Academy of Sciences). The results are compared with those for (Chinese) journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI). The frequency of journal-journal citation relations in the CSTPCD is an order of magnitude lower than in the SCI. Chinese journals, especially high-quality journals, prefer to cite international journals rather than domestic ones; however, Chinese journals do not get an equivalent reception from their international counterparts. The international visibility of Chinese journals is low, but varies among fields of science. Journals of the Chinese Academy of Sciences have a better reception in the international scientific community than university journals.
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.2, S.223-236
  10. Leydesdorff, L.; Salah, A.A.A.: Maps on the basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index : the journals Leonardo and Art Journal versus "digital humanities" as a topic (2010) 0.01 
    0.012011863 = product of:
  0.048047453 = sum of:
    0.048047453 = weight(_text_:science in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048047453 = score(doc=3436,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The possibilities of using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) for journal mapping have not been sufficiently recognized because of the absence of a Journal Citations Report (JCR) for this database. A quasi-JCR for the A&HCI ([2008]) was constructed from the data contained in the Web of Science and is used for the evaluation of two journals as examples: Leonardo and Art Journal. The maps on the basis of the aggregated journal-journal citations within this domain can be compared with maps including references to journals in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Art journals are cited by (social) science journals more than by other art journals, but these journals draw upon one another in terms of their own references. This cultural impact in terms of being cited is not found when documents with a topic such as digital humanities are analyzed. This community of practice functions more as an intellectual organizer than a journal.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.4, S.787-801
  11. Leydesdorff, L.; Radicchi, F.; Bornmann, L.; Castellano, C.; Nooy, W. de: Field-normalized impact factors (IFs) : a comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs (2013) 0.01 
    0.012011863 = product of:
  0.048047453 = sum of:
    0.048047453 = weight(_text_:science in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048047453 = score(doc=1108,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.11, S.2299-2309
  12. Rotolo, D.; Leydesdorff, L.: Matching Medline/PubMed data with Web of Science: A routine in R language (2015) 0.01 
    0.012011863 = product of:
  0.048047453 = sum of:
    0.048047453 = weight(_text_:science in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048047453 = score(doc=2224,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 2224, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2224)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    We present a novel routine, namely medlineR, based on the R language, that allows the user to match data from Medline/PubMed with records indexed in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) database. The matching allows exploiting the rich and controlled vocabulary of medical subject headings (MeSH) of Medline/PubMed with additional fields of WoS. The integration provides data (e.g., citation data, list of cited reference, list of the addresses of authors' host organizations, WoS subject categories) to perform a variety of scientometric analyses. This brief communication describes medlineR, the method on which it relies, and the steps the user should follow to perform the matching across the two databases. To demonstrate the differences from Leydesdorff and Opthof (Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1076-1080), we conclude this artcle by testing the routine on the MeSH category "Burgada syndrome."
    Object
    Web of Science
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.10, S.2155-2159
  13. Leydesdorff, L.; Rafols, I.: ¬A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories (2009) 0.01 
    0.011843857 = product of:
  0.04737543 = sum of:
    0.04737543 = weight(_text_:science in 2713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04737543 = score(doc=2713,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.38499892 = fieldWeight in 2713, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2713)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The decomposition of scientific literature into disciplinary and subdisciplinary structures is one of the core goals of scientometrics. How can we achieve a good decomposition? The ISI subject categories classify journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI). The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports can be aggregated on the basis of these categories. This leads to an asymmetrical matrix (citing versus cited) that is much more densely populated than the underlying matrix at the journal level. Exploratory factor analysis of the matrix of subject categories suggests a 14-factor solution. This solution could be interpreted as the disciplinary structure of science. The nested maps of science (corresponding to 14 factors, 172 categories, and 6,164 journals) are online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/map06. Presumably, inaccuracies in the attribution of journals to the ISI subject categories average out so that the factor analysis reveals the main structures. The mapping of science could, therefore, be comprehensive and reliable on a large scale albeit imprecise in terms of the attribution of journals to the ISI subject categories.
    Object
    Map of Science
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.2, S.348-362
  14. Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The generation of aggregated journal-journal citation maps on the basis of the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index (1994) 0.01 
    0.010855075 = product of:
  0.0434203 = sum of:
    0.0434203 = weight(_text_:science in 8281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0434203 = score(doc=8281,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 8281, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8281)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Describes a method for the generation of journal-journal citation maps on the basis of the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index. Discusses sources of potential error from this data. Offers strategies to counteract such errors. Analyzes a number of scientometric periodical mappings in relation to mappings from previous studies which have used tape data and/or data from ISI's Journal Citation Reports. Compares the quality of these mappings with the quality of those for previous years in order to demonstrate the use of such mappings as indicators for dynamic developments in the sciences
    Object
    Science Citation Index
  15. Leydesdorff, L.: Dynamic and evolutionary updates of classificatory schemes in scientific journal structures (2002) 0.01 
    0.010855075 = product of:
  0.0434203 = sum of:
    0.0434203 = weight(_text_:science in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0434203 = score(doc=1249,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Can the inclusion of new journals in the Science Citation Index be used for the indication of structural change in the database, and how can this change be compared with reorganizations of reiations among previously included journals? Change in the number of journals (n) is distinguished from change in the number of journal categories (m). Although the number of journals can be considered as a given at each moment in time, the number of journal categories is based an a reconstruction that is time-stamped ex post. The reflexive reconstruction is in need of an update when new information becomes available in a next year. Implications of this shift towards an evolutionary perspective are specified.
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.12, S.987-994
  16. Leydesdorff, L.; Shin, J.C.: How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts : fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines (2011) 0.01 
    0.010855075 = product of:
  0.0434203 = sum of:
    0.0434203 = weight(_text_:science in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0434203 = score(doc=4466,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Fractional counting of citations can improve on ranking of multidisciplinary research units (such as universities) by normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of differences in citation behavior. Furthermore, normalization in terms of citing papers abolishes the unsolved questions in scientometrics about the delineation of fields of science in terms of journals and normalization when comparing among different (sets of) journals. Using publication and citation data of seven Korean research universities, we demonstrate the advantages and the differences in the rankings, explain the possible statistics, and suggest ways to visualize the differences in (citing) audiences in terms of a network.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1146-1155
  17. Leydesdorff, L.: Should co-occurrence data be normalized : a rejoinder (2007) 0.01 
    0.010743736 = product of:
  0.042974945 = sum of:
    0.042974945 = weight(_text_:science in 627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042974945 = score(doc=627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=627)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.14, S.2411-2413
  18. Leydesdorff, L.: Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations (2008) 0.01 
    0.010743736 = product of:
  0.042974945 = sum of:
    0.042974945 = weight(_text_:science in 1361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042974945 = score(doc=1361,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 1361, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1361)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.2, S.278-287
  19. Zhou, P.; Su, X.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬A comparative study on communication structures of Chinese journals in the social sciences (2010) 0.01 
    0.010743736 = product of:
  0.042974945 = sum of:
    0.042974945 = weight(_text_:science in 3580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042974945 = score(doc=3580,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 3580, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3580)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    We argue that the communication structures in the Chinese social sciences have not yet been sufficiently reformed. Citation patterns among Chinese domestic journals in three subject areas - political science and Marxism, library and information science, and economics - are compared with their counterparts internationally. Like their colleagues in the natural and life sciences, Chinese scholars in the social sciences provide fewer references to journal publications than their international counterparts; like their international colleagues, social scientists provide fewer references than natural sciences. The resulting citation networks, therefore, are sparse. Nevertheless, the citation structures clearly suggest that the Chinese social sciences are far less specialized in terms of disciplinary delineations than their international counterparts. Marxism studies are more established than political science in China. In terms of the impact of the Chinese political system on academic fields, disciplines closely related to the political system are less specialized than those weakly related. In the discussion section, we explore reasons that may cause the current stagnation and provide policy recommendations.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1360-1376
  20. Leydesdorff, L.; Persson, O.: Mapping the geography of science : distribution patterns and networks of relations among cities and institutes (2010) 0.01 
    0.010743736 = product of:
  0.042974945 = sum of:
    0.042974945 = weight(_text_:science in 3704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042974945 = score(doc=3704,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 3704, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3704)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Using Google Earth, Google Maps, and/or network visualization programs such as Pajek, one can overlay the network of relations among addresses in scientific publications onto the geographic map. The authors discuss the pros and cons of various options, and provide software (freeware) for bridging existing gaps between the Science Citation Indices (Thomson Reuters) and Scopus (Elsevier), on the one hand, and these various visualization tools on the other. At the level of city names, the global map can be drawn reliably on the basis of the available address information. At the level of the names of organizations and institutes, there are problems of unification both in the ISI databases and with Scopus. Pajek enables a combination of visualization and statistical analysis, whereas the Google Maps and its derivatives provide superior tools on the Internet.
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.8, S.1622-1634

Authors

Years

Themes