Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.020237632 = product of:
  0.040475264 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 1521, 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=1521)
    0.018987793 = product of:
      0.037975587 = sum of:
        0.037975587 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037975587 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, 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=1521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 8.2014 16:52:04

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1820-1833

0.010009887 = product of:
  0.040039547 = sum of:
    0.040039547 = weight(_text_:science in 265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040039547 = score(doc=265,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 265, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=265)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

To provide some context for the potential engagement behavior of Twitter users around science, this article investigates how Bitly short links to scientific publications embedded in scholarly Twitter mentions are clicked on Twitter. Based on the click metrics of over 1.1 million Bitly short links referring to Web of Science (WoS) publications, our results show that around 49.5% of them were not clicked by Twitter users. For those Bitly short links with clicks from Twitter, the majority of their Twitter clicks accumulated within a short period of time after they were first tweeted. Bitly short links to the publications in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities tend to attract more clicks from Twitter over other subject fields. This article also assesses the extent to which Twitter clicks are correlated with some other impact indicators. Twitter clicks are weakly correlated with scholarly impact indicators (WoS citations and Mendeley readers), but moderately correlated to other Twitter engagement indicators (total retweets and total likes). In light of these results, we highlight the importance of paying more attention to the click metrics of URLs in scholarly Twitter mentions, to improve our understanding about the more effective dissemination and reception of science information on Twitter.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.7, S.918-932

0.0077536246 = product of:
  0.031014498 = sum of:
    0.031014498 = weight(_text_:science in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031014498 = score(doc=1196,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 1196, 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=1196)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The phenomenon of co-corresponding authorship is becoming more and more common. To understand the practice of authorship credit sharing among multiple corresponding authors, we comprehensively analyzed the characteristics of the phenomenon of co-corresponding authorships from the perspectives of countries, disciplines, journals, and articles. This researcher was based on a dataset of nearly 8 million articles indexed in the Web of Science, which provides systematic, cross-disciplinary, and large-scale evidence for understanding the phenomenon of co-corresponding authorship for the first time. Our findings reveal that higher proportions of co-corresponding authorship exist in Asian countries, especially in China. From the perspective of disciplines, there is a relatively higher proportion of co-corresponding authorship in the fields of engineering and medicine, while a lower proportion exists in the humanities, social sciences, and computer science fields. From the perspective of journals, high-quality journals usually have higher proportions of co-corresponding authorship. At the level of the article, our findings proved that, compared to articles with a single corresponding author, articles with multiple corresponding authors have a significant citation advantage.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 75(2023) no.1, S.3-23

0.0075969696 = product of:
  0.030387878 = sum of:
    0.030387878 = weight(_text_:science in 565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030387878 = score(doc=565,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 565, 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=565)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The research provides (1) an account of the construction of a new Scientific Argument Ontology (SAO), (2) a statistical analysis of 40 articles from both fields of Library and Information Science and Biomedical Research, and (3) a summary of important differences between the article structures common to each respective field of study and characteristics of their contents as revealed by applying SAO to conduct qualitative analysis. Ontology coverage ratios as well as the ratios of different classes and evidence types were calculated in the analysis. The results show a comprehensive coverage of SAO, while also indicate that the ontological construction of scientific arguments should fully consider the characteristics of their disciplines and fields in order to better facilitate extraction, discovery and retrieval.

Source

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 56(2019) no.1, S.855-857

0.0063308077 = product of:
  0.02532323 = sum of:
    0.02532323 = weight(_text_:science in 567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02532323 = score(doc=567,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 567, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=567)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Scientific papers are essential manifestations of evolving scientific knowledge, and arguments are an important avenue to communicate research results. This study aims to understand how the argumentation process is represented in scientific papers, which is important for knowledge representation, discovery, and retrieval. First, based on fundamental argument theory and scientific discourse ontologies, a coding schema, including 17 categories was constructed. Thereafter, annotation experiments were conducted with 40 scientific articles randomly selected from two different research areas (library and information science and biomedical sciences). Statistical analysis and the sequential pattern mining method were then employed; the ratio of different argumentation units and evidence types were calculated, the argumentation semantics of figures and tables analyzed, and the argumentation structures extracted. A correlation analysis between argumentation and rhetorical structures was also performed to further reveal how argumentation was represented within scientific discourses. The results indicated a difference in the proportion of the argumentation units in the two types of scientific papers, as well as a similar linear construction with differences in the specific argument structures of each knowledge domain and a clear correlation between argumentation and rhetorical structure.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.6, S.863-878

0.005371868 = product of:
  0.021487473 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 4927) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=4927,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 4927, 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=4927)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.2, S.264-279

0.005371868 = product of:
  0.021487473 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 4457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=4457,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 4457, 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=4457)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1029-1041

0.005371868 = product of:
  0.021487473 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 1301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=1301,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 1301, 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=1301)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.7, S.1335-1348

0.005371868 = product of:
  0.021487473 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=242,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 242, 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=242)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.6, S.710-722

0.005371868 = product of:
  0.021487473 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 549, 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=549)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.5, S.726-737

0.004476557 = product of:
  0.017906228 = sum of:
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 4977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=4977,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4977, 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=4977)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.225-241

0.004476557 = product of:
  0.017906228 = sum of:
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 4010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=4010,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4010, 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=4010)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.47-59

0.004476557 = product of:
  0.017906228 = sum of:
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 4461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=4461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4461, 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=4461)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.9, S.1122-1133

0.004476557 = product of:
  0.017906228 = sum of:
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 5980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=5980,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 5980, 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=5980)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Theory is a kind of condensed human knowledge. This paper is to examine the mechanism of interdisciplinary diffusion of theoretical knowledge by tracing the diffusion of a representative theory, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Design/methodology/approach Based on the full-scale dataset of Web of Science (WoS), the citations of Davis's original work about TAM were analysed and the interdisciplinary diffusion paths of TAM were delineated, a supervised machine learning method was used to extract theory incidents, and a content analysis was used to categorize the patterns of theory evolution. Findings It is found that the diffusion of a theory is intertwined with its evolution. In the process, the role that a participating discipline play is related to its knowledge distance from the original disciplines of TAM. With the distance increases, the capacity to support theory development and innovation weakens, while that to assume analytical tools for practical problems increases. During the diffusion, a theory evolves into new extensions in four theoretical construction patterns, elaboration, proliferation, competition and integration. Research limitations/implications The study does not only deepen the understanding of the trajectory of a theory but also enriches the research of knowledge diffusion and innovation. Originality/value The study elaborates the relationship between theory diffusion and theory development, reveals the roles of the participating disciplines played in theory diffusion and vice versa, interprets four patterns of theory evolution and uses text mining technique to extract theory incidents, which makes up for the shortcomings of citation analysis and content analysis used in previous studies.

0.004476557 = product of:
  0.017906228 = sum of:
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=336,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 336, 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=336)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.9, S.1161-1182

0.004476557 = product of:
  0.017906228 = sum of:
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=463,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 463, 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=463)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.188-203

0.004476557 = product of:
  0.017906228 = sum of:
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=847,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 847, 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=847)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.1, S.115-127

0.004476557 = product of:
  0.017906228 = sum of:
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=902,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 902, 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=902)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.3, S.339-353