Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.020671291 = product of:
  0.062013872 = sum of:
    0.062013872 = product of:
      0.093020804 = sum of:
        0.057281278 = weight(_text_:network in 3843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057281278 = score(doc=3843,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.29521978 = fieldWeight in 3843, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3843)
        0.035739526 = weight(_text_:29 in 3843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035739526 = score(doc=3843,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 3843, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3843)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper presents a scientometrics analysis of research work done on the emerging area of think tanks, which are regarded as a domain of information science. Research on think tanks started during the last century and in recent years has gained tremendous momentum. It is considered one of the most important emerging domains of research in information science. We have analyzed the research output data on think tanks during 2006-2016 indexed in the Web of KnowledgeT and Scopus®. Our study objectively explores the document co-citation clusters of 1,450 bibliographic records to identify the origin of think tanks and hot research specialties of the domain. CiteSpace was used to visualize the perspective of the think tanks domain. Pivotal articles, prominent authors, active disciplines and institutions have been identified by network analysis. This article describes the latest development of a generic approach to detect and visualize emerging trends and transient patterns in think tanks.

Date

29. 9.2017 18:46:06

0.014231651 = product of:
  0.042694952 = sum of:
    0.042694952 = product of:
      0.12808485 = sum of:
        0.12808485 = weight(_text_:network in 1392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12808485 = score(doc=1392,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.19402927 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.6601316 = fieldWeight in 1392, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1392)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Using the library and information science journals 2003-2012 in Nanjing University's Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index as data sources, the paper reveals the citation structure implied in these journals by applying social network analysis. Results show that, first, journal knowledge transfer activity in library and information science is frequent, and both the level of knowledge and discipline integration as well as the knowledge gap influenced knowledge transfer activity. According to the out-degree and in-degree, journals can be divided into three kinds. Second, based on professional bias and citation frequency, the knowledge transfer network can be divided into four blocks. With the change of discipline capacity and knowledge gap among journals, the "core-periphery" structure of the knowledge transfer network is getting weaker. Finally, regions of the knowledge transfer network evolved from a "weak-weak" subgroup to a "strong-weak" subgroup or a "weak-strong" subgroup, and then move to a "strong-strong" subgroup.

0.003309216 = product of:
  0.009927647 = sum of:
    0.009927647 = product of:
      0.029782942 = sum of:
        0.029782942 = weight(_text_:29 in 3846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029782942 = score(doc=3846,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326229 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043569047 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3846, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3846)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

29. 9.2017 18:46:34