Search (24 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Yan, E."
  1. Yan, E.: Finding knowledge paths among scientific disciplines (2014) 0.03 
    0.03487638 = product of:
  0.06975276 = sum of:
    0.04737543 = weight(_text_:science in 1534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04737543 = score(doc=1534,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.38499892 = fieldWeight in 1534, 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=1534)
    0.02237733 = product of:
      0.04475466 = sum of:
        0.04475466 = weight(_text_:22 in 1534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04475466 = score(doc=1534,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1534, 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=1534)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This paper uncovers patterns of knowledge dissemination among scientific disciplines. Although the transfer of knowledge is largely unobservable, citations from one discipline to another have been proven to be an effective proxy to study disciplinary knowledge flow. This study constructs a knowledge-flow network in which a node represents a Journal Citation Reports subject category and a link denotes the citations from one subject category to another. Using the concept of shortest path, several quantitative measurements are proposed and applied to a knowledge-flow network. Based on an examination of subject categories in Journal Citation Reports, this study indicates that social science domains tend to be more self-contained, so it is more difficult for knowledge from other domains to flow into them; at the same time, knowledge from science domains, such as biomedicine-, chemistry-, and physics-related domains, can access and be accessed by other domains more easily. This study also shows that social science domains are more disunified than science domains, because three fifths of the knowledge paths from one social science domain to another require at least one science domain to serve as an intermediate. This work contributes to discussions on disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity by providing empirical analysis.
    Date
    26.10.2014 20:22:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.11, S.2331-2347
  2. Min, C.; Chen, Q.; Yan, E.; Bu, Y.; Sun, J.: Citation cascade and the evolution of topic relevance (2021) 0.03 
    0.02662367 = product of:
  0.05324734 = sum of:
    0.02532323 = weight(_text_:science in 62) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02532323 = score(doc=62,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 62, 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=62)
    0.027924111 = product of:
      0.055848222 = sum of:
        0.055848222 = weight(_text_:history in 62) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055848222 = score(doc=62,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 62, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=62)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Citation analysis, as a tool for quantitative studies of science, has long emphasized direct citation relations, leaving indirect or high-order citations overlooked. However, a series of early and recent studies demonstrate the existence of indirect and continuous citation impact across generations. Adding to the literature on high-order citations, we introduce the concept of a citation cascade: the constitution of a series of subsequent citing events initiated by a certain publication. We investigate this citation structure by analyzing more than 450,000 articles and over 6 million citation relations. We show that citation impact exists not only within the three generations documented in prior research but also in much further generations. Still, our experimental results indicate that two to four generations are generally adequate to trace a work's scientific impact. We also explore specific structural properties-such as depth, width, structural virality, and size-which account for differences among individual citation cascades. Finally, we find evidence that it is more important for a scientific work to inspire trans-domain (or indirectly related domain) works than to receive only intradomain recognition in order to achieve high impact. Our methods and findings can serve as a new tool for scientific evaluation and the modeling of scientific history.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.1, S.110-127
  3. Zheng, X.; Chen, J.; Yan, E.; Ni, C.: Gender and country biases in Wikipedia citations to scholarly publications (2023) 0.02 
    0.024687836 = product of:
  0.049375672 = sum of:
    0.030387878 = weight(_text_:science in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030387878 = score(doc=886,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 886, 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=886)
    0.018987793 = product of:
      0.037975587 = sum of:
        0.037975587 = weight(_text_:22 in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037975587 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 886, 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=886)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Ensuring Wikipedia cites scholarly publications based on quality and relevancy without biases is critical to credible and fair knowledge dissemination. We investigate gender- and country-based biases in Wikipedia citation practices using linked data from the Web of Science and a Wikipedia citation dataset. Using coarsened exact matching, we show that publications by women are cited less by Wikipedia than expected, and publications by women are less likely to be cited than those by men. Scholarly publications by authors affiliated with non-Anglosphere countries are also disadvantaged in getting cited by Wikipedia, compared with those by authors affiliated with Anglosphere countries. The level of gender- or country-based inequalities varies by research field, and the gender-country intersectional bias is prominent in math-intensive STEM fields. To ensure the credibility and equality of knowledge presentation, Wikipedia should consider strategies and guidelines to cite scholarly publications independent of the gender and country of authors.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:53:32
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.219-233
  4. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Weighted citation : an indicator of an article's prestige (2010) 0.01 
    0.0101292925 = product of:
  0.04051717 = sum of:
    0.04051717 = weight(_text_:science in 3705) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04051717 = score(doc=3705,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.3292649 = fieldWeight in 3705, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3705)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The authors propose using the technique of weighted citation to measure an article's prestige. The technique allocates a different weight to each reference by taking into account the impact of citing journals and citation time intervals. Weightedcitation captures prestige, whereas citation counts capture popularity. They compare the value variances for popularity and prestige for articles published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology from 1998 to 2007, and find that the majority have comparable status.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.8, S.1635-1643
  5. Yan, E.; Yu, Q.: Using path-based approaches to examine the dynamic structure of discipline-level citation networks (2016) 0.01 
    0.00930435 = product of:
  0.0372174 = sum of:
    0.0372174 = weight(_text_:science in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0372174 = score(doc=3053,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 3053, 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=3053)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The objective of this paper is to identify the dynamic structure of several time-dependent, discipline-level citation networks through a path-based method. A network data set is prepared that comprises 27 subjects and their citations aggregated from more than 27,000 journals and proceedings indexed in the Scopus database. A maximum spanning tree method is employed to extract paths in the weighted, directed, and cyclic networks. This paper finds that subjects such as Medicine, Biochemistry, Chemistry, Materials Science, Physics, and Social Sciences are the ones with multiple branches in the spanning tree. This paper also finds that most paths connect science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields; 2 critical paths connecting STEM and non-STEM fields are the one from Mathematics to Decision Sciences and the one from Medicine to Social Sciences.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.8, S.1943-1955
  6. Yan, E.: Disciplinary knowledge production and diffusion in science (2016) 0.01 
    0.00930435 = product of:
  0.0372174 = sum of:
    0.0372174 = weight(_text_:science in 3092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0372174 = score(doc=3092,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 3092, 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=3092)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study examines patterns of dynamic disciplinary knowledge production and diffusion. It uses a citation data set of Scopus-indexed journals and proceedings. The journal-level citation data set is aggregated into 27 subject areas and these subjects are selected as the unit of analysis. A 3-step approach is employed: the first step examines disciplines' citation characteristics through scientific trading dimensions; the second step analyzes citation flows between pairs of disciplines; and the third step uses egocentric citation networks to assess individual disciplines' citation flow diversity through Shannon entropy. The results show that measured by scientific impact, the subjects of Chemical Engineering, Energy, and Environmental Science have the fastest growth. Furthermore, most subjects are carrying out more diversified knowledge trading practices by importing higher volumes of knowledge from a greater number of subjects. The study also finds that the growth rates of disciplinary citations align with the growth rates of global research and development (R&D) expenditures, thus providing evidence to support the impact of R&D expenditures on knowledge production.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.9, S.2223-2245
  7. Milojevic, S.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: ¬The cognitive structure of Library and Information Science : analysis of article title words (2011) 0.01 
    0.008953114 = product of:
  0.035812456 = sum of:
    0.035812456 = weight(_text_:science in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035812456 = score(doc=4608,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study comprises a suite of analyses of words in article titles in order to reveal the cognitive structure of Library and Information Science (LIS). The use of title words to elucidate the cognitive structure of LIS has been relatively neglected. The present study addresses this gap by performing (a) co-word analysis and hierarchical clustering, (b) multidimensional scaling, and (c) determination of trends in usage of terms. The study is based on 10,344 articles published between 1988 and 2007 in 16 LIS journals. Methodologically, novel aspects of this study are: (a) its large scale, (b) removal of non-specific title words based on the "word concentration" measure (c) identification of the most frequent terms that include both single words and phrases, and (d) presentation of the relative frequencies of terms using "heatmaps". Conceptually, our analysis reveals that LIS consists of three main branches: the traditionally recognized library-related and information-related branches, plus an equally distinct bibliometrics/scientometrics branch. The three branches focus on: libraries, information, and science, respectively. In addition, our study identifies substructures within each branch. We also tentatively identify "information seeking behavior" as a branch that is establishing itself separate from the three main branches. Furthermore, we find that cognitive concepts in LIS evolve continuously, with no stasis since 1992. The most rapid development occurred between 1998 and 2001, influenced by the increased focus on the Internet. The change in the cognitive landscape is found to be driven by the emergence of new information technologies, and the retirement of old ones.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.10, S.1933-1953
  8. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.: Applying centrality measures to impact analysis : a coauthorship network analysis (2009) 0.01 
    0.008863131 = product of:
  0.035452522 = sum of:
    0.035452522 = weight(_text_:science in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035452522 = score(doc=3083,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Many studies on coauthorship networks focus on network topology and network statistical mechanics. This article takes a different approach by studying micro-level network properties with the aim of applying centrality measures to impact analysis. Using coauthorship data from 16 journals in the field of library and information science (LIS) with a time span of 20 years (1988-2007), we construct an evolving coauthorship network and calculate four centrality measures (closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, degree centrality, and PageRank) for authors in this network. We find that the four centrality measures are significantly correlated with citation counts. We also discuss the usability of centrality measures in author ranking and suggest that centrality measures can be useful indicators for impact analysis.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.10, S.2107-2118
  9. Pan, X.; Yan, E.; Hua, W.: Science communication and dissemination in different cultures : an analysis of the audience for TED videos in China and abroad (2016) 0.01 
    0.0077536246 = product of:
  0.031014498 = sum of:
    0.031014498 = weight(_text_:science in 2938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031014498 = score(doc=2938,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 2938, 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=2938)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Disseminated across the world in more than 100 languages and viewed over 1 billion times, TED Talks is a successful example of web-based science communication. This study investigates the impact of TED Talks videos on YouKu, a Chinese video portal, and YouTube using 6 measures of impact: number of views; likes; dislikes; comments; bookmarks; and shares. In particular, we study the relationship between the topicality and impact of these videos. Findings demonstrate that topics vary greatly in terms of their impact: Topics on entertainment and psychology/philosophy receive more views and likes, whereas design/art and astronomy/biology/oceanography attract fewer comments and bookmarks. Moreover, we identify several topical differences between YouKu and YouTube users. Topics on global issues and technology are more popular on YouKu, whereas topics on entertainment and psychology/philosophy are more popular on YouTube. By analyzing the popularity distribution of videos and the audience characteristics of YouKu, we find that women are more interested in topics on education and psychology/philosophy, whereas men favor topics on technology and astronomy/biology/oceanography.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.6, S.1473-1486
  10. Yan, E.; Zhu, Y.: Adding the dimension of knowledge trading to source impact assessment : approaches, indicators, and implications (2017) 0.01 
    0.0077536246 = product of:
  0.031014498 = sum of:
    0.031014498 = weight(_text_:science in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031014498 = score(doc=3633,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 3633, 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=3633)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The objective of this paper is to systematically assess sources' (e.g., journals and proceedings) impact in knowledge trading. While there have been efforts at evaluating different aspects of journal impact, the dimension of knowledge trading is largely absent. To fill the gap, this study employed a set of trading-based indicators, including weighted degree centrality, Shannon entropy, and weighted betweenness centrality, to assess sources' trading impact. These indicators were applied to several time-sliced source-to-source citation networks that comprise 33,634 sources indexed in the Scopus database. The results show that several interdisciplinary sources, such as Nature, PLoS One, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Science, and several specialty sources, such as Lancet, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Journal of the American Chemical Society, Journal of Biological Chemistry, and New England Journal of Medicine, have demonstrated their marked importance in knowledge trading. Furthermore, this study also reveals that, overall, sources have established more trading partners, increased their trading volumes, broadened their trading areas, and diversified their trading contents over the past 15 years from 1997 to 2011. These results inform the understanding of source-level impact assessment and knowledge diffusion.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.5, S.1090-1104
  11. Yan, E.; Ding, Y.; Sugimoto, C.R.: P-Rank: an indicator measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks (2011) 0.01 
    0.0075969696 = product of:
  0.030387878 = sum of:
    0.030387878 = weight(_text_:science in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030387878 = score(doc=4349,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4349, 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=4349)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Ranking scientific productivity and prestige are often limited to homogeneous networks. These networks are unable to account for the multiple factors that constitute the scholarly communication and reward system. This study proposes a new informetric indicator, P-Rank, for measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks containing articles, authors, and journals. P-Rank differentiates the weight of each citation based on its citing papers, citing journals, and citing authors. Articles from 16 representative library and information science journals are selected as the dataset. Principle Component Analysis is conducted to examine the relationship between P-Rank and other bibliometric indicators. We also compare the correlation and rank variances between citation counts and P-Rank scores. This work provides a new approach to examining prestige in scholarly communication networks in a more comprehensive and nuanced way.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.3, S.467-477
  12. Yan, E.; Sugimoto, C.R.: Institutional interactions : exploring social, cognitive, and geographic relationships between institutions as demonstrated through citation networks (2011) 0.01 
    0.0075969696 = product of:
  0.030387878 = sum of:
    0.030387878 = weight(_text_:science in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030387878 = score(doc=4627,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4627, 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=4627)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The objective of this research is to examine the interaction of institutions, based on their citation and collaboration networks. The domain of library and information science is examined, using data from 1965-2010. A linear model is formulated to explore the factors that are associated with institutional citation behaviors, using the number of citations as the dependent variable, and the number of collaborations, physical distance, and topical distance as independent variables. It is found that institutional citation behaviors are associated with social, topical, and geographical factors. Dynamically, the number of citations is becoming more associated with collaboration intensity and less dependent on the country boundary and/or physical distance. This research is informative for scientometricians and policy makers.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1498-1514
  13. Yan, E.: Research dynamics, impact, and dissemination : a topic-level analysis (2015) 0.01 
    0.0075969696 = product of:
  0.030387878 = sum of:
    0.030387878 = weight(_text_:science in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030387878 = score(doc=2272,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 2272, 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=2272)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In informetrics, journals have been used as a standard unit to analyze research impact, productivity, and scholarship. The increasing practice of interdisciplinary research challenges the effectiveness of journal-based assessments. The aim of this article is to highlight topics as a valuable unit of analysis. A set of topic-based approaches is applied to a data set on library and information science publications. Results show that topic-based approaches are capable of revealing the research dynamics, impact, and dissemination of the selected data set. The article also identifies a nonsignificant relationship between topic popularity and impact and argues for the need to use both variables in describing topic characteristics. Additionally, a flow map illustrates critical topic-level knowledge dissemination channels.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2357-2372
  14. Hu, B.; Dong, X.; Zhang, C.; Bowman, T.D.; Ding, Y.; Milojevic, S.; Ni, C.; Yan, E.; Larivière, V.: ¬A lead-lag analysis of the topic evolution patterns for preprints and publications (2015) 0.01 
    0.0075969696 = product of:
  0.030387878 = sum of:
    0.030387878 = weight(_text_:science in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030387878 = score(doc=2337,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 2337, 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=2337)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study applied LDA (latent Dirichlet allocation) and regression analysis to conduct a lead-lag analysis to identify different topic evolution patterns between preprints and papers from arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS) in astrophysics over the last 20 years (1992-2011). Fifty topics in arXiv and WoS were generated using an LDA algorithm and then regression models were used to explain 4 types of topic growth patterns. Based on the slopes of the fitted equation curves, the paper redefines the topic trends and popularity. Results show that arXiv and WoS share similar topics in a given domain, but differ in evolution trends. Topics in WoS lose their popularity much earlier and their durations of popularity are shorter than those in arXiv. This work demonstrates that open access preprints have stronger growth tendency as compared to traditional printed publications.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2643-2656
  15. Zhao, M.; Yan, E.; Li, K.: Data set mentions and citations : a content analysis of full-text publications (2018) 0.01 
    0.0075969696 = product of:
  0.030387878 = sum of:
    0.030387878 = weight(_text_:science in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030387878 = score(doc=4008,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4008, 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=4008)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study provides evidence of data set mentions and citations in multiple disciplines based on a content analysis of 600 publications in PLoS One. We find that data set mentions and citations varied greatly among disciplines in terms of how data sets were collected, referenced, and curated. While a majority of articles provided free access to data, formal ways of data attribution such as DOIs and data citations were used in a limited number of articles. In addition, data reuse took place in less than 30% of the publications that used data, suggesting that researchers are still inclined to create and use their own data sets, rather than reusing previously curated data. This paper provides a comprehensive understanding of how data sets are used in science and helps institutions and publishers make useful data policies.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.32-46
  16. Ding, Y.; Yan, E.; Frazho, A.; Caverlee, J.: PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks (2009) 0.01 
    0.005371868 = product of:
  0.021487473 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=3161,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3161, 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=3161)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2229-2243
  17. Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Zhang, Z.; Foo, S.; Yan, E.; George, N.L.; Guo, L.: Perspectives on social tagging (2009) 0.01 
    0.005371868 = product of:
  0.021487473 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 3290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=3290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3290, 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=3290)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.12, S.2388-2401
  18. Ding, Y.; Jacob, E.K.; Fried, M.; Toma, I.; Yan, E.; Foo, S.; Milojevicacute, S.: Upper tag ontology for integrating social tagging data (2010) 0.01 
    0.005371868 = product of:
  0.021487473 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 3421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=3421,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3421, 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=3421)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.3, S.505-521
  19. Ding, Y.; Yan, E.: Scholarly network similarities : how bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other (2012) 0.01 
    0.005371868 = product of:
  0.021487473 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=274,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 274, 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=274)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1313-1326
  20. Zhu, Y.; Yan, E.; Song, I.-Y..: ¬The use of a graph-based system to improve bibliographic information retrieval : system design, implementation, and evaluation (2017) 0.01 
    0.005371868 = product of:
  0.021487473 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 3356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=3356,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3356, 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=3356)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.2, S.480-490

Authors

Years

Themes