Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.032547574 = product of:
  0.08136893 = sum of:
    0.04505062 = weight(_text_:study in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04505062 = score(doc=5071,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.3111048 = fieldWeight in 5071, 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=5071)
    0.03631831 = product of:
      0.07263662 = sum of:
        0.07263662 = weight(_text_:teaching in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07263662 = score(doc=5071,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24199244 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.433489 = idf(docFreq=524, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.30016068 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.433489 = idf(docFreq=524, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The academic impact advantage of Open Access (OA) is a prominent topic of debate in the library and publishing communities. Web citations have been proposed as comparable to, even replacements for, bibliographic citations in assessing the academic impact of journals. In our study, we compare Web citations to articles in an OA journal, the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC), and a traditional access journal, New Media & Society (NMS), in the communication discipline. Web citation counts for JCMC are significantly higher than those for NMS. Furthermore, JCMC receives significantly higher Web citations from the formal scholarly publications posted on the Web than NMS does. The types of Web citations for journal articles were also examined. In the Web context, the impact of a journal can be assessed using more than one type of source: citations from scholarly articles, teaching materials and non-authoritative documents. The OA journal has higher percentages of citations from the third type, which suggests that, in addition to the research community, the impact advantage of open access is also detectable among ordinary users participating in Web-based academic communication. Moreover, our study also proves that the OA journal has impact advantage in developing countries. Compared with NMS, JCMC has more Web citations from developing countries.

0.023247084 = product of:
  0.05811771 = sum of:
    0.036783673 = weight(_text_:study in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036783673 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.25401598 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
    0.021334039 = product of:
      0.042668078 = sum of:
        0.042668078 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042668078 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Internet based electronic resources are growing dramatically but there have been no empirical studies evaluating the impact of e-sources, as a whole, on formal scholarly communication. reports results of an investigation into how much e-sources have been used in formal scholarly communication, using a case study in the area of Library and Information Science (LIS) during the period 1994 to 1996. 4 citation based indicators were used in the study of the impact measurement. Concludes that, compared with the impact of print sources, the impact of e-sources on formal scholarly communication in LIS is small, as measured by e-sources cited, and does not increase significantly by year even though there is observable growth of these impact across the years. It is found that periodical format is related to the rate of citing e-sources, articles are more likely to cite e-sources than are print priodical articles. However, once authors cite electronic resource, there is no significant difference in the number of references per article by periodical format or by year. Suggests that, at this stage, citing e-sources may depend on authors rather than the periodical format in which authors choose to publish

Date

30. 1.1999 17:22:22

0.020747647 = product of:
  0.051869117 = sum of:
    0.036783673 = weight(_text_:study in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036783673 = score(doc=994,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.25401598 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.015085445 = product of:
      0.03017089 = sum of:
        0.03017089 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03017089 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Predicting a researcher's knowledge trajectories beyond their current foci can leverage potential inter-/cross-/multi-disciplinary interactions to achieve exploratory innovation. In this study, we present a method of diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation. The method begins by constructing a heterogeneous bibliometric network consisting of a co-topic layer and a co-authorship layer. A novel link prediction approach with a diffusion strategy is then used to capture the interactions between social elements (e.g., collaboration) and knowledge elements (e.g., technological similarity) in the process of exploratory innovation. This diffusion strategy differentiates the interactions occurring among homogeneous and heterogeneous nodes in the heterogeneous bibliometric network and weights the strengths of these interactions. Two sets of experiments-one with a local dataset and the other with a global dataset-demonstrate that the proposed method is prior to 10 selected baselines in link prediction, recommender systems, and upstream graph representation learning. A case study recommending knowledge trajectories of information scientists with topical hierarchy and explainable mediators reveals the proposed method's reliability and potential practical uses in broad scenarios.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:07:12