Search (640 results, page 1 of 32)

0.19891998 = product of:
  0.26522663 = sum of:
    0.0618301 = product of:
      0.1854903 = sum of:
        0.1854903 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1854903 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39605197 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1000, 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=1000)
    0.1854903 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1854903 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39605197 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Content

Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.

0.14839223 = product of:
  0.29678446 = sum of:
    0.074196115 = product of:
      0.22258835 = sum of:
        0.22258835 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22258835 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.39605197 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.22258835 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22258835 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39605197 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.044764705 = product of:
  0.08952941 = sum of:
    0.067190126 = weight(_text_:science in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067190126 = score(doc=595,freq=44.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.5460241 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
          6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
            44.0 = termFreq=44.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
    0.022339288 = product of:
      0.044678576 = sum of:
        0.044678576 = weight(_text_:history in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044678576 = score(doc=595,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.20559052 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Science maps are visual representations of the structure and dynamics of scholarly knowl­edge. They aim to show how fields, disciplines, journals, scientists, publications, and scientific terms relate to each other. Science mapping is the body of methods and techniques that have been developed for generating science maps. This entry is an introduction to science maps and science mapping. It focuses on the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological issues of science mapping, rather than on the mathematical formulation of science mapping techniques. After a brief history of science mapping, we describe the general procedure for building a science map, presenting the data sources and the methods to select, clean, and pre-process the data. Next, we examine in detail how the most common types of science maps, namely the citation-based and the term-based, are generated. Both are based on networks: the former on the network of publications connected by citations, the latter on the network of terms co-occurring in publications. We review the rationale behind these mapping approaches, as well as the techniques and methods to build the maps (from the extraction of the network to the visualization and enrichment of the map). We also present less-common types of science maps, including co-authorship networks, interlocking editorship networks, maps based on patents' data, and geographic maps of science. Moreover, we consider how time can be represented in science maps to investigate the dynamics of science. We also discuss some epistemological and sociological topics that can help in the interpretation, contextualization, and assessment of science maps. Then, we present some possible applications of science maps in science policy. In the conclusion, we point out why science mapping may be interesting for all the branches of meta-science, from knowl­edge organization to epistemology.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Special issue on 'Science and knowledge organization' mit längeren Überblicken zu wichtigen Begriffen der Wissensorgansiation.

0.03666427 = product of:
  0.07332854 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=492,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 492, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=492)
    0.044678576 = product of:
      0.08935715 = sum of:
        0.08935715 = weight(_text_:history in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08935715 = score(doc=492,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 492, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

LCSH

Information science / History
Information resources / History
Information science / Enclopedias

Subject

Information science / History
Information resources / History
Information science / Enclopedias

0.03477092 = product of:
  0.06954184 = sum of:
    0.053718682 = weight(_text_:science in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053718682 = score(doc=5839,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.4365477 = fieldWeight in 5839, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5839)
    0.015823163 = product of:
      0.031646326 = sum of:
        0.031646326 = weight(_text_:22 in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031646326 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5839, 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=5839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose In The Invisible Substrate of Information Science, a landmark article about the discipline of information science, Marcia J. Bates wrote that ".we are always looking for the red thread of information in the social texture of people's lives" (1999a, p. 1048). To sharpen our understanding of information science and to elaborate Bates' idea, the work at hand answers the question: Just what does the red thread of information entail? Design/methodology/approach Through a close reading of Bates' oeuvre and by applying concepts from the reference literature of information science, nine composite entities that qualify as the red thread of information are identified, elaborated, and related to existing concepts in the information science literature. In the spirit of a scientist-poet (White, 1999), several playful metaphors related to the color red are employed. Findings Bates' red thread of information entails: terms, genres, literatures, classification systems, scholarly communication, information retrieval, information experience, information institutions, and information policy. This same constellation of phenomena can be found in resonant visions of information science, namely, domain analysis (Hjørland, 2002), ethnography of infrastructure (Star, 1999), and social epistemology (Shera, 1968). Research limitations/implications With the vital vermilion filament in clear view, newcomers can more easily engage the material, conceptual, and social machinery of information science, and specialists are reminded of what constitutes information science as a whole. Future researchers and scientist-poets may wish to supplement the nine composite entities with additional, emergent information phenomena. Originality/value Though the explication of information science that follows is relatively orthodox and time-bound, the paper offers an imaginative, accessible, yet technically precise way of understanding the field.

Date

30. 4.2020 21:03:22

0.034746435 = product of:
  0.06949287 = sum of:
    0.037900344 = weight(_text_:science in 610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037900344 = score(doc=610,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.30799913 = fieldWeight in 610, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=610)
    0.031592526 = product of:
      0.06318505 = sum of:
        0.06318505 = weight(_text_:history in 610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06318505 = score(doc=610,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.2907489 = fieldWeight in 610, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=610)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose This study continues a long history of author co-citation analysis of the intellectual structure of information science into the time period of 2011-2020. It also examines changes in this structure from 2006-2010 through 2011-2015 to 2016-2020. Results will contribute to a better understanding of the information science research field. Design/methodology/approach The well-established procedures and techniques for author co-citation analysis were followed. Full records of research articles in core information science journals published during 2011-2020 were retrieved and downloaded from the Web of Science database. About 150 most highly cited authors in each of the two five-year time periods were selected from this dataset to represent this field, and their co-citation counts were calculated. Each co-citation matrix was input into SPSS for factor analysis, and results were visualized in Pajek. Factors were interpreted as specialties and labeled upon an examination of articles written by authors who load primarily on each factor. Findings The two-camp structure of information science continued to be present clearly. Bibliometric indicators for research evaluation dominated the Knowledge Domain Analysis camp during both fivr-year time periods, whereas interactive information retrieval (IR) dominated the IR camp during 2011-2015 but shared dominance with information behavior during 2016-2020. Bridging between the two camps became increasingly weaker and was only provided by the scholarly communication specialty during 2016-2020. The IR systems specialty drifted further away from the IR camp. The information behavior specialty experienced a deep slump during 2011-2020 in its evolution process. Altmetrics grew to dominate the Webometrics specialty and brought it to a sharp increase during 2016-2020. Originality/value Author co-citation analysis (ACA) is effective in revealing intellectual structures of research fields. Most related studies used term-based methods to identify individual research topics but did not examine the interrelationships between these topics or the overall structure of the field. The few studies that did discuss the overall structure paid little attention to the effect of changes to the source journals on the results. The present study does not have these problems and continues the long history of benchmark contributions to a better understanding of the information science field using ACA.

0.03443813 = product of:
  0.06887626 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=415,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 415, 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=415)
    0.04738879 = product of:
      0.09477758 = sum of:
        0.09477758 = weight(_text_:history in 415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09477758 = score(doc=415,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.43612334 = fieldWeight in 415, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=415)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Project success is critical in the crowdfunding domain. Rather than the existing project-centric prediction methods, we propose a novel backer-centric prediction method. We identify each backer's preferences based on their pledge history and calculate the cosine similarity between backer's preferences and the project as each backer's persuasibility. Finally, we aggregate all the backers' persuasibility to predict project success. To validate our method, we crawled data on 183,886 projects launched during or before December 2014 on Kickstarter, a crowdfunding website. We selected 4,922 backers with a total of 442,793 pledges to identify backers' preferences. The results show that a backer is more likely to be persuaded by a project that is more similar to the backer's preferences. Our findings not only demonstrate the efficacy of backers' pledge history for predicting crowdfunding project success but also verify that a backer-centric method can supplement the existing project-centric approaches. Our model and findings enable crowdfunding platform agencies, fund-seeking entrepreneurs, and investors to predict the success of a crowdfunding project.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.12, S.1558-1574

0.031599298 = product of:
  0.063198596 = sum of:
    0.04737543 = weight(_text_:science in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04737543 = score(doc=992,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.38499892 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
    0.015823163 = product of:
      0.031646326 = sum of:
        0.031646326 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031646326 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This is the first study that evaluated the coverage of journals from Africa in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. A list of active journals published in each of the 55 African countries was compiled from Ulrich's periodicals directory and African Journals Online (AJOL) website. Journal master lists for Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef were searched for the African journals. A total of 2,229 unique active African journals were identified from Ulrich (N = 2,117, 95.0%) and AJOL (N = 243, 10.9%) after removing duplicates. The volume of African journals in Web of Science and Scopus databases is 7.4% (N = 166) and 7.8% (N = 174), respectively, compared to the 45.6% (N = 1,017) covered in CrossRef. While making up only 17.% of all the African journals, South African journals had the best coverage in the two most authoritative databases, accounting for 73.5% and 62.1% of all the African journals in Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. In contrast, Nigeria published 44.5% of all the African journals. The distribution of the African journals is biased in favor of Medical, Life and Health Sciences and Humanities and the Arts in the three databases. The low representation of African journals in CrossRef, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African-centric research indexing database, is concerning.

Date

22. 6.2023 14:09:06

Object

Web of Science

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.745-758

0.029842142 = product of:
  0.059684284 = sum of:
    0.04386112 = weight(_text_:science in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04386112 = score(doc=998,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
    0.015823163 = product of:
      0.031646326 = sum of:
        0.031646326 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031646326 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.811-827

0.029469304 = product of:
  0.058938608 = sum of:
    0.031014498 = weight(_text_:science in 5811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031014498 = score(doc=5811,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 5811, 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=5811)
    0.027924111 = product of:
      0.055848222 = sum of:
        0.055848222 = weight(_text_:history in 5811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055848222 = score(doc=5811,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 5811, 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=5811)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Research activities related to social informatics (SI) are expanding, even as community fragmentation, topical dispersion, and methodological diversity continue to increase. Specifically, the different understandings of SI in regional communities have strong impacts, and each has a different history, methodological grounding, and often a different thematic focus. The aim of this article is to connect three selected perspectives on SI-intellectual (regional schools of thought), methodological, and thematic-and introduce a comparative framework for understanding SI that includes all known approaches. Thus, the article draws from a thematic and methodological grounding of research across schools of thought, along with definitions that rely on the extension and intension of the notion of SI. The article is built on a paralogy of views and pluralism typical of postmodern science. Because SI is forced to continually reform its research focus, due to the rapid development of information and communication technology, social changes and ideologies that surround computerization and informatization, the presented perspective maintains a high degree of flexibility, without the need to constantly redefine the boundaries, as is typical in modern science. This approach may support further developments in promoting and understanding SI worldwide.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.5, S.529-539

0.028802473 = product of:
  0.057604946 = sum of:
    0.035452522 = weight(_text_:science in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035452522 = score(doc=40,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
    0.022152426 = product of:
      0.04430485 = sum of:
        0.04430485 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04430485 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59

Object

Web of Science

0.028802473 = product of:
  0.057604946 = sum of:
    0.035452522 = weight(_text_:science in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035452522 = score(doc=547,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 547, 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=547)
    0.022152426 = product of:
      0.04430485 = sum of:
        0.04430485 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04430485 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, 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=547)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.

Date

6. 4.2022 19:22:26

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.5, S.702-707

0.02869844 = product of:
  0.05739688 = sum of:
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=5920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 5920, 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=5920)
    0.039490655 = product of:
      0.07898131 = sum of:
        0.07898131 = weight(_text_:history in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07898131 = score(doc=5920,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.3634361 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The movement for open access publishing (OA) is often said to have its roots in the scientific disciplines, having been popularized by scientific publishers and formalized through a range of top-down policy interventions. But there is an often-neglected prehistory of OA that can be found in the early DIY publishers of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Managed entirely by working academics, these journals published research in the humanities and social sciences and stand out for their unique set of motivations and practices. This article explores this separate lineage in the history of the OA movement through a critical-theoretical analysis of the motivations and practices of the early scholar-led publishers. Alongside showing the involvement of the humanities and social sciences in the formation of OA, the analysis reveals the importance that these journals placed on experimental practices, critique of commercial publishing, and the desire to reach new audiences. Understood in today's context, this research is significant for adding complexity to the history of OA, which policymakers, advocates, and publishing scholars should keep in mind as OA goes mainstream.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.7, S.856-866

0.02869844 = product of:
  0.05739688 = sum of:
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=620,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 620, 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=620)
    0.039490655 = product of:
      0.07898131 = sum of:
        0.07898131 = weight(_text_:history in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07898131 = score(doc=620,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.3634361 = fieldWeight in 620, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=620)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

On account of the complexities related to the use of digitized newspapers, researchers may encounter barriers when interacting with the collections' content. Overcoming barriers that could influence their information interaction should enhance the accessibility and utility of the newspapers. Hence, the study examined the barriers faced in history-research tasks involving interaction with digitized historical newspapers, with focus on the barriers' contexts and the related task-based activities. The analysis employed two datasets, from in-depth interviews and demonstrations of newspaper-use situations. Content analysis from these complementary data showed that barriers arose in multiple contexts, connected with the collection, task, tools, and socio-organizational setting. Most barriers were associated with collection context and occurred in information searching and selection activities and in working with information items. Barriers related to the task or to socio-organizational context arose most often in the planning and monitoring activities and in synthesizing and reporting. Such research-based insight into the barriers faced can aid in illuminating what is required for providing good support to researchers working with digital newspaper content.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.7, S.1012-1024

0.027498204 = product of:
  0.05499641 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 5621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=5621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 5621, 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=5621)
    0.033508934 = product of:
      0.06701787 = sum of:
        0.06701787 = weight(_text_:history in 5621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06701787 = score(doc=5621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.3083858 = fieldWeight in 5621, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

To support historians in their work, we need to understand their work-related needs and propose what is required to support those needs. Although the quantity of digitized historical documents available is increasing, historians' ways of working with the digital documents have not been widely studied, particularly in authentic work settings. To better support the historians' reasoning processes, we investigate history researchers' work tasks as the context of information interaction and examine their cognitive access points into information. The analysis is based on a longitudinal observational research and interviews in a task-based research setting. Based on these findings in the historians' cognitive space, we build bridges into the document space. By studying the information interactions in real task contexts, we facilitate the provision of task-specific handles into documents that can be used in designing digital research tools for historians.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.2, S.230-241

0.027498204 = product of:
  0.05499641 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 210, 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=210)
    0.033508934 = product of:
      0.06701787 = sum of:
        0.06701787 = weight(_text_:history in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06701787 = score(doc=210,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.3083858 = fieldWeight in 210, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Game development artifacts resulting from the creation process of video games, such as design documents, style guides, test builds, and marketing materials, provide rich contextual information about how and why the game was created. Better organizing and preserving these materials will not only enrich our understanding of the history of these media but also educate and inspire the next generation of video game creators. This research aims to improve our theoretical understanding of how to organize and represent game development artifacts by examining the various types of artifacts created and their attendant issues and challenges. We adopted a multimethod approach employing an examination of existing collections and 29 interviews with creators, information professionals, and game researchers. From these data, we analyze the current practices, expressed values, and perceived challenges of these stakeholders, produce a taxonomy of game development artifacts, and provide best practices recommendations for describing them.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.5, S.540-553

0.027498204 = product of:
  0.05499641 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
    0.033508934 = product of:
      0.06701787 = sum of:
        0.06701787 = weight(_text_:history in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06701787 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.3083858 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

After two decades in the 21st Century, and despite all the advances in the area, some very important names from past centuries still do not have the recognition they deserve in the global history of library and information science and, specifically, of knowledge organization. Although acknowledged in British librarianship, the name of James Duff Brown (1862-1914) still does not have a proper recognition on a global scale. His contributions to a free and more democratic library had a prominent place in the works and projects he developed during his time at the libraries of Clerkenwell and Islington in London. Free access to the library shelves, an architecture centered on books and people, and classifications that are more dynamic were dreams fulfilled by Brown. With this biographical article, we hope to live up to his legacy and pay homage to a true librarian and an advocate of the public library and subject classification.

0.027498204 = product of:
  0.05499641 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=943,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 943, 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=943)
    0.033508934 = product of:
      0.06701787 = sum of:
        0.06701787 = weight(_text_:history in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06701787 = score(doc=943,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.3083858 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article discusses OpenAI's ChatGPT, a generative pre-trained transformer, which uses natural language processing to fulfill text-based user requests (i.e., a "chatbot"). The history and principles behind ChatGPT and similar models are discussed. This technology is then discussed in relation to its potential impact on academia and scholarly research and publishing. ChatGPT is seen as a potential model for the automated preparation of essays and other types of scholarly manuscripts. Potential ethical issues that could arise with the emergence of large language models like GPT-3, the underlying technology behind ChatGPT, and its usage by academics and researchers, are discussed and situated within the context of broader advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing for research and scholarly publishing.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.5, S.570-581

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

0.026508883 = product of:
  0.053017765 = sum of:
    0.014324983 = weight(_text_:science in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014324983 = score(doc=829,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
    0.038692784 = product of:
      0.07738557 = sum of:
        0.07738557 = weight(_text_:history in 829) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07738557 = score(doc=829,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.35609323 = fieldWeight in 829, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=829)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Constructivism in the social sciences has known several ups and downs over the last decades. It was successful rather early in sociology but hotly contested in International Politics/Relations (IR). Oddly enough, just at the moments it made important inroads into the research agenda and became accepted by the mainstream, the enthusiasm for it waned. Many constructivists-as did mainstream scholars-moved from "grand theory" or even "meta-theory" toward "normal science," or experimented with other (eclectic) approaches, of which the turns to practices, to emotions, to new materialism, to the visual, and to the queer are some of the latest manifestations. In a way, constructivism was "successful," on the one hand, by introducing norms, norm-dynamics, and diffusion; the role of new actors in world politics; and the changing role of institutions into the debates, while losing, on the other hand, much of its critical potential. The latter survived only on the fringes-and in Europe more than in the United States. In IR, curiously, constructivism, which was rooted in various European traditions (philosophy, history, linguistics, social analysis), was originally introduced in Europe via the disciplinary discussions taking place in the United States. Yet, especially in its critical version, it has found a more conducive environment in Europe than in the United States.
In the United States, soon after its emergence, constructivism became "mainstreamed" by having its analysis of norms reduced to "variable research." In such research, positive examples of for instance the spread of norms were included, but strangely empirical evidence of counterexamples of norm "deaths" (preventive strikes, unlawful combatants, drone strikes, extrajudicial killings) were not. The elective affinity of constructivism and humanitarianism seemed to have transformed the former into the Enlightenment project of "progress." Even Kant was finally pressed into the service of "liberalism" in the U.S. discussion, and his notion of the "practical interest of reason" morphed into the political project of an "end of history." This "slant" has prevented a serious conceptual engagement with the "history" of law and (inter-)national politics and the epistemological problems that are raised thereby. This bowdlerization of constructivism is further buttressed by the fact that in the "knowledge industry" none of the "leading" U.S. departments has a constructivist on board, ensuring thereby the narrowness of conceptual and methodological choices to which the future "professionals" are exposed. This article contextualizes constructivism and its emergence within a changing world and within the evolution of the discipline. The aim is not to provide a definition or a typology of constructivism, since such efforts go against the critical dimension of constructivism. An application of this critique on constructivism itself leads to a reflection on truth, knowledge, and the need for (re-)orientation.