Search (98 results, page 1 of 5)

0.06400875 = product of:
  0.1280175 = sum of:
    0.10918827 = weight(_text_:social in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10918827 = score(doc=4460,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.59108585 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Aggregated journal-journal citations can be used for mapping the intellectual organization of the sciences in terms of specialties because the latter can be considered as interreading communities. Can the journal-journal citations also be used as early indicators of change by comparing the files for two subsequent years? Probabilistic entropy measures enable us to analyze changes in large datasets at different levels of aggregation and in considerable detail. Compares Journal Citation Reports of the Social Science Citation Index for 1999 with similar data for 1998 and analyzes the differences using these measures. Compares the various indicators with similar developments in the Science Citation Index. Specialty formation seems a more important mechanism in the development of the social sciences than in the natural and life sciences, but the developments in the social sciences are volatile. The use of aggregate statistics based on the Science Citation Index is ill-advised in the case of the social sciences because of structural differences in the underlying dynamics.

Date

6.11.2005 19:02:22

0.042979553 = product of:
  0.08595911 = sum of:
    0.056384586 = weight(_text_:social in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056384586 = score(doc=76,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.30523545 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
    0.029574523 = product of:
      0.059149045 = sum of:
        0.059149045 = weight(_text_:aspects in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059149045 = score(doc=76,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.28249177 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

According to Jean M. Tague-Sutcliffe "informetrics" is "the study of the quantitative aspects of information in any form, not just records or bibliographies, and in any social group, not just scientists" (Tague-Sutcliffe, 1992, 1). Leo Egghe also defines "informetrics" in a very broad sense. "(W)e will use the term' informetrics' as the broad term comprising all-metrics studies related to information science, including bibliometrics (bibliographies, libraries,...), scientometrics (science policy, citation analysis, research evaluation,...), webometrics (metrics of the web, the Internet or other social networks such as citation or collaboration networks), ..." (Egghe, 2005b,1311). According to Concepcion S. Wilson "informetrics" is "the quantitative study of collections of moderatesized units of potentially informative text, directed to the scientific understanding of information processes at the social level" (Wilson, 1999, 211). We should add to Wilson's units of text also digital collections of images, videos, spoken documents and music. Dietmar Wolfram divides "informetrics" into two aspects, "system-based characteristics that arise from the documentary content of IR systems and how they are indexed, and usage-based characteristics that arise how users interact with system content and the system interfaces that provide access to the content" (Wolfram, 2003, 6). We would like to follow Tague-Sutcliffe, Egghe, Wilson and Wolfram (and others, for example Björneborn & Ingwersen, 2004) and call this broad research of empirical information science "informetrics". Informetrics includes therefore all quantitative studies in information science. If a scientist performs scientific investigations empirically, e.g. on information users' behavior, on scientific impact of academic journals, on the development of the patent application activity of a company, on links of Web pages, on the temporal distribution of blog postings discussing a given topic, on availability, recall and precision of retrieval systems, on usability of Web sites, and so on, he or she contributes to informetrics. We see three subject areas in information science in which such quantitative research takes place, - information users and information usage, - evaluation of information systems, - information itself, Following Wolfram's article, we divide his system-based characteristics into the "information itself "-category and the "information system"-category. Figure 1 is a simplistic graph of subjects and research areas of informetrics as an empirical information science.

0.037729513 = product of:
  0.075459026 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
    0.026628546 = product of:
      0.053257093 = sum of:
        0.053257093 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053257093 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.03051905 = product of:
  0.1220762 = sum of:
    0.1220762 = weight(_text_:social in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1220762 = score(doc=839,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.66085404 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report an investigation into the social and citation networks of three information scientists: David Nicholas, Peter Williams and Paul Huntington. Design/methodology/approach - Similarities between citation patterns and social closeness were identified and discussed. A total of 16 individuals in the citation network were identified and investigated using citation analysis, and a matrix formed of citations made between those in the network. Social connections between the 16 in the citation network were then investigated by means of a questionnaire, the results of which were merged into a separate matrix. These matrices were converted into visual social networks, using multidimensional scaling. A new deviance measure was devised for drawing comparisons between social and citation closeness in individual cases. Findings - Nicholas, Williams and Huntington were found to have cited 527 authors in the period 2000-2003, the 16 most cited becoming the subjects of further citation and social investigation. This comparison, along with the examination of visual representations indicates a positive correlation between social closeness and citation counts. Possible explanations for this correlation are discussed, and implications considered. Despite this correlation, the information scientists were found to cite widely outside their immediate social connections. Originality/value - Social network analysis has not been often used in combination with citation analysis to explore inter-relationships in research teams.

0.026915273 = product of:
  0.10766109 = sum of:
    0.10766109 = weight(_text_:social in 5107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10766109 = score(doc=5107,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.5828185 = fieldWeight in 5107, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5107)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Journal articles constitute the core documents for the diffusion of knowledge in the natural sciences. It has been argued that the same is not true for the social sciences and humanities where knowledge is more often disseminated in monographs that are not indexed in the journal-based databases used for bibliometric analysis. Previous studies have made only partial assessments of the role played by both serials and other types of literature. The importance of journal literature in the various scientific fields has therefore not been systematically characterized. The authors address this issue by providing a systematic measurement of the role played by journal literature in the building of knowledge in both the natural sciences and engineering and the social sciences and humanities. Using citation data from the CD-ROM versions of the Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) databases from 1981 to 2000 (Thomson ISI, Philadelphia, PA), the authors quantify the share of citations to both serials and other types of literature. Variations in time and between fields are also analyzed. The results show that journal literature is increasingly important in the natural and social sciences, but that its role in the humanities is stagnant and has even tended to diminish slightly in the 1990s. Journal literature accounts for less than 50% of the citations in several disciplines of the social sciences and humanities; hence, special care should be used when using bibliometric indicators that rely only on journal literature.

Object

Social Sciences Citation Index

0.026733 = product of:
  0.053466 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
    0.020912344 = product of:
      0.041824687 = sum of:
        0.041824687 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041824687 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.024918701 = product of:
  0.099674806 = sum of:
    0.099674806 = weight(_text_:social in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099674806 = score(doc=2946,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.02441524 = product of:
  0.09766096 = sum of:
    0.09766096 = weight(_text_:social in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09766096 = score(doc=928,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 928, 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=928)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper evaluates the content of Google Scholar and seven other databases (Academic Search Elite, AgeLine, ArticleFirst, GEOBASE, POPLINE, Social Sciences Abstracts, and Social Sciences Citation Index) within the multidisciplinary subject area of later-life migration. Each database is evaluated with reference to a set of 155 core articles selected in advance-the most important studies of later-life migration published from 1990 to 2000. Of the eight databases, Google Scholar indexes the greatest number of core articles (93%) and provides the most uniform publisher and date coverage. It covers 27% more core articles than the second-ranked database (SSCI) and 2.4 times as many as the lowest-ranked database (GEOBASE). At the same time, a substantial proportion of the citations provided by Google Scholar are incomplete (32%) or presented without abstracts (33%).

Object

Social Sciences Abstracts
Social Sciences Citation Index

0.02441524 = product of:
  0.09766096 = sum of:
    0.09766096 = weight(_text_:social in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09766096 = score(doc=1953,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.02114422 = product of:
  0.08457688 = sum of:
    0.08457688 = weight(_text_:social in 4908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08457688 = score(doc=4908,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.45785317 = fieldWeight in 4908, 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=4908)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Link analysis in various forms is now an established technique in many different subjects, reflecting the perceived importance of links and of the Web. A critical but very difficult issue is how to interpret the results of social science link analyses. lt is argued that the dynamic nature of the Web, its lack of quality control, and the online proliferation of copying and imitation mean that methodologies operating within a highly positivist, quantitative framework are ineffective. Conversely, the sheer variety of the Web makes application of qualitative methodologies and pure reason very problematic to large-scale studies. Methodology triangulation is consequently advocated, in combination with a warning that the Web is incapable of giving definitive answers to large-scale link analysis research questions concerning social factors underlying link creation. Finally, it is claimed that although theoretical frameworks are appropriate for guiding research, a Theory of Link Analysis is not possible.

0.02114422 = product of:
  0.08457688 = sum of:
    0.08457688 = weight(_text_:social in 75) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08457688 = score(doc=75,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.02114422 = product of:
  0.08457688 = sum of:
    0.08457688 = weight(_text_:social in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08457688 = score(doc=1376,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.020915726 = product of:
  0.083662905 = sum of:
    0.083662905 = sum of:
      0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052280862 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031382043 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

0.018198047 = product of:
  0.07279219 = sum of:
    0.07279219 = weight(_text_:social in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07279219 = score(doc=2095,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.017620182 = product of:
  0.07048073 = sum of:
    0.07048073 = weight(_text_:social in 1614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07048073 = score(doc=1614,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3815443 = fieldWeight in 1614, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1614)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Open-access online publication has made available an increasingly wide range of document types for scientometric analysis. In this article, we focus on citations in online presentations, seeking evidence of their value as nontraditional indicators of research impact. For this purpose, we searched for online PowerPoint files mentioning any one of 1,807 ISI-indexed journals in ten science and ten social science disciplines. We also manually classified 1,378 online PowerPoint citations to journals in eight additional science and social science disciplines. The results showed that very few journals were cited frequently enough in online PowerPoint files to make impact assessment worthwhile, with the main exceptions being popular magazines like Scientific American and Harvard Business Review. Surprisingly, however, there was little difference overall in the number of PowerPoint citations to science and to the social sciences, and also in the proportion representing traditional impact (about 60%) and wider impact (about 15%). It seems that the main scientometric value for online presentations may be in tracking the popularization of research, or for comparing the impact of whole journals rather than individual articles.

0.017264182 = product of:
  0.06905673 = sum of:
    0.06905673 = weight(_text_:social in 5223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06905673 = score(doc=5223,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.017264182 = product of:
  0.06905673 = sum of:
    0.06905673 = weight(_text_:social in 207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06905673 = score(doc=207,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3738355 = fieldWeight in 207, 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=207)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Due to e-mail's ubiquitous nature, millions of users are intimate with the technology; however, most users are only familiar with managing their own e-mail, which is an inherently different task from exploring an e-mail archive. Historians and social scientists believe that e-mail archives are important artifacts for understanding the individuals and communities they represent. To understand the conversations evidenced in an archive, context is needed. In this article, we present a new way to gain this necessary context: analyzing the temporal rhythms of social relationships. We provide methods for constructing meaningful rhythms from the e-mail headers by identifying relationships and interpreting their attributes. With these visualization techniques, e-mail archive explorers can uncover insights that may have been otherwise hidden in the archive. We apply our methods to an individual's 15-year e-mail archive, which consists of about 45,000 messages and over 4,000 relationships.

0.017264182 = product of:
  0.06905673 = sum of:
    0.06905673 = weight(_text_:social in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06905673 = score(doc=453,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3738355 = fieldWeight in 453, 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=453)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In addition to science citation indicators of journals like impact and immediacy, social network analysis provides a set of centrality measures like degree, betweenness, and closeness centrality. These measures are first analyzed for the entire set of 7,379 journals included in the Journal Citation Reports of the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index 2004 (Thomson ISI, Philadelphia, PA), and then also in relation to local citation environments that can be considered as proxies of specialties and disciplines. Betweenness centrality is shown to be an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals, but only in local citation environments and after normalization; otherwise, the influence of degree centrality (size) overshadows the betweenness-centrality measure. The indicator is applied to a variety of citation environments, including policy-relevant ones like biotechnology and nanotechnology. The values of the indicator remain sensitive to the delineations of the set because of the indicator's local character. Maps showing interdisciplinarity of journals in terms of betweenness centrality can be drawn using information about journal citation environments, which is available online.

0.016276827 = product of:
  0.06510731 = sum of:
    0.06510731 = weight(_text_:social in 5199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06510731 = score(doc=5199,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3524555 = fieldWeight in 5199, 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=5199)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Finally, Bookstein points to the ambiguity of our measurements that seems to present a structural impediment to the development of social science theory. Our theory always seems to be at an early stage, information science still at the frontier.

0.016276827 = product of:
  0.06510731 = sum of:
    0.06510731 = weight(_text_:social in 4870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06510731 = score(doc=4870,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3524555 = fieldWeight in 4870, 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=4870)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini