Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024054427 = product of:
  0.060136065 = sum of:
    0.04505062 = weight(_text_:study in 3997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04505062 = score(doc=3997,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.3111048 = fieldWeight in 3997, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3997)
    0.015085445 = product of:
      0.03017089 = sum of:
        0.03017089 = weight(_text_:22 in 3997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03017089 = score(doc=3997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3997, 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=3997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to measure the efficiency of the system by which scientists worldwide communicate results to each other, providing one measure of the degree to which the system, including all media, functions well. A randomly selected and representative sample of 246 active research scientists worldwide was surveyed. The main measure was the reported rate of "late finds": scientific literature that would have been useful to scientists' projects if it had been found at the beginning of these projects. The main result was that 46% of the sample reported late finds (±6.25%, p0.05). Among respondents from European Union countries or other countries classified as "high income" by the World Bank, 42% reported late finds. Among respondents from low- and middle-income countries, 56% reported late finds. The 42% rate in high-income countries in 2009 can be compared with results of earlier surveys by Martyn (1964a, b, 1987). These earlier surveys found a rate of 22% late finds in 1963-1964 and a rate of 27% in 1985-1986. Respondents were also queried about search habits, but this study failed to support any explanations for this increase in the rate of late finds. This study also permits a crude estimate of the cost in time and money of the increase in late finds.

0.024054427 = product of:
  0.060136065 = sum of:
    0.04505062 = weight(_text_:study in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04505062 = score(doc=661,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.3111048 = fieldWeight in 661, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=661)
    0.015085445 = product of:
      0.03017089 = sum of:
        0.03017089 = weight(_text_:22 in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03017089 = score(doc=661,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 661, 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=661)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Explicit definition of the limits of citation analysis demands additional tests for the validity of citation analysis. The stability of citation rankings over time can be regarded as confirming the validity of evaluative citation analysis. This stability over time was investigated for two sets of citation records from the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, PA) for articles published in journals classified in Journal Citation Reports as Mathematics. These sets are of all such articles for the 1960s and for the 1970s. This study employs only descriptive statistics and draws no inferences to any larger population. The study found a high correlation from one decade to the next of rankings among sets of most highly cited articles. However, the study found a low correlation for rankings among articles whose ranks were the 500 directly below those of the 500 most cited. This perhaps expected result is discussed in terms of the Glänzel-Schubert-Schoepflin stochastic model for citation processes and also in connection with an account of the purposes of evaluative citation analysis. This interpretative context suggests why the limitations of citation analysis may be inherent to citation analysis even when it is done well.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:23:35