Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.032553654 = product of:
  0.13021462 = sum of:
    0.13021462 = weight(_text_:social in 7239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13021462 = score(doc=7239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.704911 = fieldWeight in 7239, 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=7239)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.028192293 = product of:
  0.11276917 = sum of:
    0.11276917 = weight(_text_:social in 3655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11276917 = score(doc=3655,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.6104709 = fieldWeight in 3655, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3655)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper explores the history of 'the social' in information science. It traces the influence of social scientific thinking on the development of the field's intellectual base. The continuing appropriation of both theoretical and methodological insights from domains such as social studies of science, science and technology studies, and socio-technical systems is discussed.

0.02441524 = product of:
  0.09766096 = sum of:
    0.09766096 = weight(_text_:social in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09766096 = score(doc=1825,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 1825, 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=1825)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions

0.020141546 = product of:
  0.08056618 = sum of:
    0.08056618 = weight(_text_:social in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08056618 = score(doc=5678,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.43614143 = fieldWeight in 5678, 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=5678)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Examines the complex relationship between information investment and socio-economic development with special reference to the relevance and appropriateness of the information services offered to developinf countries. Emphasises the importance of cultural relativism in the varying potential of information to influence social development. Proposes a civic networking model which contributes to the empowerment of the people by ensuring that: citizens are provided with free or subsidized access to community (and other) information resources; the local community has a high level of equity/ownership in the design and maintenance of the information system/service; and content is locally negotiated and validated

0.017264182 = product of:
  0.06905673 = sum of:
    0.06905673 = weight(_text_:social in 525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06905673 = score(doc=525,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3738355 = fieldWeight in 525, 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=525)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Research on bias in peer review examines scholarly communication and funding processes to assess the epistemic and social legitimacy of the mechanisms by which knowledge communities vet and self-regulate their work. Despite vocal concerns, a closer look at the empirical and methodological limitations of research on bias raises questions about the existence and extent of many hypothesized forms of bias. In addition, the notion of bias is predicated on an implicit ideal that, once articulated, raises questions about the normative implications of research on bias in peer review. This review provides a brief description of the function, history, and scope of peer review; articulates and critiques the conception of bias unifying research on bias in peer review; characterizes and examines the empirical, methodological, and normative claims of bias in peer review research; and assesses possible alternatives to the status quo. We close by identifying ways to expand conceptions and studies of bias to contend with the complexity of social interactions among actors involved directly and indirectly in peer review.

0.016276827 = product of:
  0.06510731 = sum of:
    0.06510731 = weight(_text_:social in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06510731 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3524555 = fieldWeight in 1416, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1416)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

State of the art review of the ways in which the library and information science (LIS) profession is adapting to the growing informatization of society, the emergence of an information society and how librarians and information scientists are positioning themselves as players in an information society, characterized by metaphors such as 'information superhighway' and 'Worldwide Library'. Identifies major change drivers and considers the kinds of strategic responses being made by, and required of, the LIS field in the face of pervasive technologization and shifting social practices

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=244,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 244, 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=244)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.

0.0142422225 = product of:
  0.05696889 = sum of:
    0.05696889 = weight(_text_:social in 7827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05696889 = score(doc=7827,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 7827, 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=7827)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reviews the scale, range and consistency of acknowledgement behaviour, in citations, for a number of academic disciplines. The qualitative and quantitative evidence suggests a pervasive and consistent practice in which acknowledgements define a variety of social, cognitive and instrumental relationships between scholars and within and across disciplines. As such they may be used alongside other bibliometric indicators, such as citations, to map networks of influence. Considers the case for using acknowledgements data in the assessment of academic performance and proposes an online acknowledgement index to facilitate this process, perhaps as a logical extension of ISI's citation indexing products

0.0142422225 = product of:
  0.05696889 = sum of:
    0.05696889 = weight(_text_:social in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05696889 = score(doc=2094,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 2094, 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=2094)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We chronicle the use of acknowledgments in 20th century chemistry by analyzing and classifying over 2,000 specimens covering a 100-year period. Our results show that acknowledgment has gradually established itself as a constitutive element of academic writing- one that provides a revealing insight into the structural nature of subauthorship collaboration in science. Complementary data an rates of coauthorship are also presented to highlight the growing importance of teamwork and the increasing division of labor in contemporary chemistry. The results of this study are compared with the findings of a parallel study of collaboration in both the social sciences and the humanities.

0.010983714 = product of:
  0.043934856 = sum of:
    0.043934856 = product of:
      0.08786971 = sum of:
        0.08786971 = weight(_text_:22 in 7192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08786971 = score(doc=7192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2009 11:44:11

0.010983714 = product of:
  0.043934856 = sum of:
    0.043934856 = product of:
      0.08786971 = sum of:
        0.08786971 = weight(_text_:22 in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08786971 = score(doc=4347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4347, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2013 16:18:36

0.010456172 = product of:
  0.041824687 = sum of:
    0.041824687 = product of:
      0.083649375 = sum of:
        0.083649375 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083649375 = score(doc=5127,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.39950368 = fieldWeight in 5127, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reviews a variety of perspectives on citation. Argues that citations have multiple articulations in that they inform our understanding of the sociocultural, cognitive, and textual aspects of scientific communication. Proposes 2 metatheoretical frameworks as a means of negotiating the interpretative differences which characterize the various discourse communities concerned with citation theory and practice

0.009414612 = product of:
  0.03765845 = sum of:
    0.03765845 = product of:
      0.0753169 = sum of:
        0.0753169 = weight(_text_:22 in 7297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0753169 = score(doc=7297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 7297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26. 4.2015 19:27:22

0.007845511 = product of:
  0.031382043 = sum of:
    0.031382043 = product of:
      0.062764086 = sum of:
        0.062764086 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062764086 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

31. 7.2001 20:22:57