Search (131 results, page 1 of 7)

0.079833075 = product of:
  0.13305512 = sum of:
    0.03148376 = weight(_text_:technology in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03148376 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
    0.07981009 = weight(_text_:social in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07981009 = score(doc=6920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.43614143 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
    0.021761272 = product of:
      0.043522544 = sum of:
        0.043522544 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043522544 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, 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=6920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Over a 35-year period, Irving H. Sher played a critical role in the development and implementation of the Science Citation Index and other ISI products. Trained as a biochemist, statistician, and linguist, Sher brought a unique combination of talents to ISI as Director of Quality Control and Director of Research and Development. His talents as a teacher and mentor evoked loyalty. He was a particularly inventive but self-taught programmer. In addition to the SCI, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index,

Date

16.12.2001 14:01:22

Object

Social Sciences Citation Index

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.14, S.1197-1202

0.06580757 = product of:
  0.10967928 = sum of:
    0.03148376 = weight(_text_:technology in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03148376 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
    0.056434255 = weight(_text_:social in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056434255 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
    0.021761272 = product of:
      0.043522544 = sum of:
        0.043522544 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043522544 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, 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=5269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This comparative case study of the diffusion and nondiffusion over time of eight theories in the social sciences uses citation analysis, citation context analysis, content analysis, surveys of editorial review boards, and personal interviews with theorists to develop a model of the theory functions that facilitate theory diffusion throughout specific intellectual communities. Unlike previous work on the diffusion of theories as innovations, this theory functions model differs in several important respects from the findings of previous studies that employed Everett Rogers's classic typology of innovation characteristics that promote diffusion. The model is also presented as a contribution to a more integrated theory of citation.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:20:01

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.330-341

0.061042167 = product of:
  0.10173694 = sum of:
    0.026986076 = weight(_text_:technology in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026986076 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.04837222 = weight(_text_:social in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04837222 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.026378648 = product of:
      0.052757297 = sum of:
        0.052757297 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052757297 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20%, 50%, and 80% of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.858-862

0.049492206 = product of:
  0.12373052 = sum of:
    0.026986076 = weight(_text_:technology in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026986076 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
    0.09674444 = weight(_text_:social in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09674444 = score(doc=1953,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper examines the probability structure of the 2005 Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) Journal Citation Reports (JCR) by analyzing the Impact Factor distributions of their journals. The distribution of the SCI journals corresponded with a distribution generally modeled by the negative binomial distribution, whereas the SSCI distribution fit the Poisson distribution modeling random, rare events. Both Impact Factor distributions were positively skewed - the SCI much more so than the SSCI - indicating excess variance. One of the causes of this excess variance was that the journals highest in the Impact Factor in both JCRs tended to class in subject categories well funded by the National Institutes of Health. The main reason for the SCI Impact Factor distribution being more skewed than the SSCI one was that review journals defining disciplinary paradigms play a much more important role in the sciences than in the social sciences.

Object

Social Sciences Citation Index

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1366-1382

0.04868117 = product of:
  0.121702924 = sum of:
    0.07196287 = weight(_text_:technology in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07196287 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.5265094 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.049740054 = product of:
      0.09948011 = sum of:
        0.09948011 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09948011 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx

0.048491117 = product of:
  0.121227786 = sum of:
    0.022488397 = weight(_text_:technology in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022488397 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
    0.098739386 = weight(_text_:social in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.098739386 = score(doc=2946,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.5395851 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1537-1549

0.04430769 = product of:
  0.11076923 = sum of:
    0.026986076 = weight(_text_:technology in 75) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026986076 = score(doc=75,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 75, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=75)
    0.08378315 = weight(_text_:social in 75) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08378315 = score(doc=75,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.45785317 = fieldWeight in 75, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=75)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

We investigated how citations from documents labeled by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) as "editorial material" contribute to the impact factor of academic journals in which they were published. Our analysis is based on records corresponding to the documents classified by the ISI as editorial material published in journals covered by the Social Sciences Citation Index between 1999 and 2003 (50,273 records corresponding to editorial material published in 2,374 journals). The results appear to rule out widespread manipulation of the impact factor by academic journals publishing large amounts of editorial material with many citations to the journal itself as a strategy to increase the impact factor.

Object

Social Sciences Citation Index

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.2, S.252-262

0.04430769 = product of:
  0.11076923 = sum of:
    0.026986076 = weight(_text_:technology in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026986076 = score(doc=1376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 1376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1376)
    0.08378315 = weight(_text_:social in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08378315 = score(doc=1376,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.45785317 = fieldWeight in 1376, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1376)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article examines the impact of the Internet and the age distribution of research scholars on academic citation age with a mathematical model proposed by Barnett, Fink, and Debus (1989) and a revised model that incorporates information about the online environment and scholar age distribution. The modified model fits the data well, accounting for 99.6% of the variance for science citations and 99.8% for social science citations. The Internet's impact on the aging process of academic citations has been very small, accounting for only 0.1% for the social sciences and 0.8% for the sciences. Rather than resulting in the use of more recent citations, the Internet appears to have lengthened the average life of academic citations by 6 to 8 months. The aging of scholars seems to have a greater impact, accounting for 2.8% of the variance for the sciences and 0.9% for the social sciences. However, because the diffusion of the Internet and the aging of the professoriate are correlated over this time period, differentiating their effects is somewhat problematic.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.4, S.526-534

0.04257297 = product of:
  0.07095495 = sum of:
    0.017990718 = weight(_text_:technology in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017990718 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
    0.032248147 = weight(_text_:social in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032248147 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
    0.02071609 = product of:
      0.04143218 = sum of:
        0.04143218 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04143218 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20741826 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This study explores the tendency of authors to recite themselves and others in multiple works over time, using the insights gained to build citation theory. The set of all authors whom an author cites is defined as that author's citation identity. The study explains how to retrieve citation identities from the Institute for Scientific Information's files on Dialog and how to deal with idiosyncrasies of these files. As the author's oeuvre grows, the identity takes the form of a core-and-scatter distribution that may be divided into authors cited only once (unicitations) and authors cited at least twice (recitations). The latter group, especially those recited most frequently, are interpretable as symbols of a citer's main substantive concerns. As illustrated by the top recitees of eight information scientists, identities are intelligible, individualized, and wide-ranging. They are ego-centered without being egotistical. They are often affected by social ties between citers and citees, but the universal motivator seems to be the perceived relevance of the citees' works. Citing styles in identities differ: "scientific-paper style" authors recite heavily, adding to core; "bibliographic-essay style" authors are heavy on unicitations, adding to scatter; "literature-review style" authors do both at once. Identities distill aspects of citers' intellectual lives, such as orienting figures, interdisciplinary interests, bidisciplinary careers, and conduct in controversies. They can also be related to past schemes for classifying citations in categories such as positive-negative and perfunctory- organic; indeed, one author's frequent recitation of another, whether positive or negative, may be the readiest indicator of an organic relation between them. The shape of the core-and-scatter distribution of names in identities can be explained by the principle of least effort. Citers economize on effort by frequently reciting only a relatively small core of names in their identities. They also economize by frequent use of perfunctory citations, which require relatively little context, and infrequent use of negative citations, which require contexts more laborious to set

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.2, S.87-108

0.03815789 = product of:
  0.09539472 = sum of:
    0.026986076 = weight(_text_:technology in 5223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026986076 = score(doc=5223,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 5223, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5223)
    0.068408646 = weight(_text_:social in 5223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068408646 = score(doc=5223,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.3738355 = fieldWeight in 5223, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5223)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

It has been shown in the physical sciences that a paper's length is related to its number of references in a linear manner. Abt and Garfield here look at the life and social sciences with the thought that if the relation holds the citation counts will provide a measure of relative importance across these disciplines. In the life sciences 200 research papers from 1999-2000 were scanned in each of 10 journals to produce counts of 1000 word normalized pages. In the social sciences an average of 70 research papers in nine journals were scanned for the two-year period. Papers of average length in the various sciences have the same average number of references within plus or minus 17%. A look at the 30 to 60 papers over the two years in 18 review journals indicates twice the references of research papers of the same length.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.13, S.1106-1112

0.03815789 = product of:
  0.09539472 = sum of:
    0.026986076 = weight(_text_:technology in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026986076 = score(doc=3436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
    0.068408646 = weight(_text_:social in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068408646 = score(doc=3436,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.3738355 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The possibilities of using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) for journal mapping have not been sufficiently recognized because of the absence of a Journal Citations Report (JCR) for this database. A quasi-JCR for the A&HCI ([2008]) was constructed from the data contained in the Web of Science and is used for the evaluation of two journals as examples: Leonardo and Art Journal. The maps on the basis of the aggregated journal-journal citations within this domain can be compared with maps including references to journals in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Art journals are cited by (social) science journals more than by other art journals, but these journals draw upon one another in terms of their own references. This cultural impact in terms of being cited is not found when documents with a topic such as digital humanities are analyzed. This community of practice functions more as an intellectual organizer than a journal.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.4, S.787-801

0.036039907 = product of:
  0.09009977 = sum of:
    0.017990718 = weight(_text_:technology in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017990718 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.13162735 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
    0.07210905 = weight(_text_:social in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07210905 = score(doc=2095,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.39405724 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Many authors have posited a social component in citation, the consensus being that the citers and citees often have interpersonal as well as intellectual ties. Evidence for this belief has been rather meager, however, in part because social networks researchers have lacked bibliometric data (e.g., pairwise citation counts from online databases), and citation analysts have lacked sociometric data (e.g., pairwise measures of acquaintanceship). In 1997 Nazer extensively measured personal relationships and communication behaviors in what we call "Globenet," an international group of 16 researchers from seven disciplines that was established in 1993 to study human development. Since Globenet's membership is known, it was possible during 2002 to obtain citation records for all members in databases of the Institute for Scientific Information. This permitted examination of how members cited each other (intercited) in journal articles over the past three decades and in a 1999 book to which they all contributed. It was also possible to explore links between the intercitation data and the social and communication data. Using network-analytic techniques, we look at the growth of intercitation over time, the extent to which it follows disciplinary or interdisciplinary lines, whether it covaries with degrees of acquaintanceship, whether it reflects Globenet's organizational structure, whether it is associated with particular in-group communication patterns, and whether it is related to the cocitation of Globenet members. Results show cocitation to be a powerful predictor of intercitation in the journal articles, while being an editor or co-author is an important predictor in the book. Intellectual ties based an shared content did better as predictors than content-neutral social ties like friendship. However, interciters in Globenet communicated more than did noninterciters.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.2, S.111-126

0.03482447 = product of:
  0.08706117 = sum of:
    0.068408646 = weight(_text_:social in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068408646 = score(doc=3692,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.3738355 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
    0.01865252 = product of:
      0.03730504 = sum of:
        0.03730504 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03730504 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16070013 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04589033 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to examine the patterns of self citation in 6 disciplines distributed among the physical and social sciences and humanities. Sample articles were examined to deermine the relative numbers and ages of self citations and citations to other in the bibliographies and to the exposure given to each type of citation in the text of the articles. significant differences were found in the number and age of citations between disciplines. Overall, 9% of all citations were self citations; 15% of physical sciences citations were self citations, as opposed to 6% in the social sciences and 3% in the humanities. Within disciplines, there was no significantly different amount of coverage between self citations and citations to others. Overall, it appears that a lack of substantive differences in self citation behaviour is consistent across disciplines

Date

22. 5.1999 19:33:24

0.031798244 = product of:
  0.07949561 = sum of:
    0.022488397 = weight(_text_:technology in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022488397 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
    0.057007212 = weight(_text_:social in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057007212 = score(doc=337,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.7, S.1055-1065

0.030143319 = product of:
  0.075358294 = sum of:
    0.026986076 = weight(_text_:technology in 970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026986076 = score(doc=970,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 970, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=970)
    0.04837222 = weight(_text_:social in 970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04837222 = score(doc=970,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 970, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=970)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The increasing employment of bibliometric measures for assessing, describing, and mapping science inevitably leads to the increasing need for a citation theory constituting a theoretical frame for both citation analysis and the description of citers' behavior. In this article a theoretical model, encompassing both normative and constructivist approaches, is suggested. The conceptualization of scientific communities as autopoietic systems, the components of which are communicative events, allows us to observe the reproductive function of citations conceived as codes and media of scientific communication. Citations, thanks to their constraining and enabling properties, constitute the engine of the structuration process ensuring the reproduction of scientific communities. By referring to Giddens' structuration theory, Luhmann's theory about social systems as communicative networks, Merton's "sociology of science" and his conceptualizations about the functions of citations, as well as Small's proposal about citations as concept-symbols, a sociologically integrated approach to scientometrics is proposed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.7, S.1442-1453

0.030143319 = product of:
  0.075358294 = sum of:
    0.026986076 = weight(_text_:technology in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026986076 = score(doc=975,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
    0.04837222 = weight(_text_:social in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04837222 = score(doc=975,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This study proposes a new framework for citation content analysis (CCA), for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content that can be used to better analyze the rich sociocultural context of research behavior. This framework could be considered the next generation of citation analysis. The authors briefly review the history and features of content analysis in traditional social sciences and its previous application in library and information science (LIS). Based on critical discussion of the theoretical necessity of a new method as well as the limits of citation analysis, the nature and purposes of CCA are discussed, and potential procedures to conduct CCA, including principles to identify the reference scope, a two-dimensional (citing and cited) and two-module (syntactic and semantic) codebook, are provided and described. Future work and implications are also suggested.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.7, S.1490-1503

0.02884543 = product of:
  0.07211357 = sum of:
    0.031803396 = weight(_text_:technology in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031803396 = score(doc=3225,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13667917 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
    0.04031018 = weight(_text_:social in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04031018 = score(doc=3225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

We present an analysis of data citation practices based on the Data Citation Index (DCI) (Thomson Reuters). This database launched in 2012 links data sets and data studies with citations received from the other citation indexes. The DCI harvests citations to research data from papers indexed in the Web of Science. It relies on the information provided by the data repository. The findings of this study show that data citation practices are far from common in most research fields. Some differences have been reported on the way researchers cite data: Although in the areas of science and engineering & technology data sets were the most cited, in the social sciences and arts & humanities data studies play a greater role. A total of 88.1% of the records have received no citation, but some repositories show very low uncitedness rates. Although data citation practices are rare in most fields, they have expanded in disciplines such as crystallography and genomics. We conclude by emphasizing the role that the DCI could play in encouraging the consistent, standardized citation of research data-a role that would enhance their value as a means of following the research process from data collection to publication.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.2964-2975

0.025798518 = product of:
  0.12899259 = sum of:
    0.12899259 = weight(_text_:social in 5647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12899259 = score(doc=5647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.704911 = fieldWeight in 5647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5647)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Social studies of science. 5(1975), S.423-441

0.025798518 = product of:
  0.12899259 = sum of:
    0.12899259 = weight(_text_:social in 5651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12899259 = score(doc=5651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.704911 = fieldWeight in 5651, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5651)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Social studies of science. 5(1975), S.86-92

0.025798518 = product of:
  0.12899259 = sum of:
    0.12899259 = weight(_text_:social in 7777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12899259 = score(doc=7777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18299131 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04589033 = queryNorm
        0.704911 = fieldWeight in 7777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7777)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Social studies of science. 16(1986), S.151-172