-
Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006)
0.03
0.028865311 = product of:
0.07216328 = sum of:
0.054060746 = weight(_text_:study in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054060746 = score(doc=201,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.37332577 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
0.018102532 = product of:
0.036205065 = sum of:
0.036205065 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036205065 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.
- Date
- 3. 1.2007 17:22:03
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006)
0.02
0.02301344 = product of:
0.0575336 = sum of:
0.03641398 = weight(_text_:study in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03641398 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.251463 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
0.021119623 = product of:
0.042239245 = sum of:
0.042239245 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042239245 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This comparative case study of the diffusion and nondiffusion over time of eight theories in the social sciences uses citation analysis, citation context analysis, content analysis, surveys of editorial review boards, and personal interviews with theorists to develop a model of the theory functions that facilitate theory diffusion throughout specific intellectual communities. Unlike previous work on the diffusion of theories as innovations, this theory functions model differs in several important respects from the findings of previous studies that employed Everett Rogers's classic typology of innovation characteristics that promote diffusion. The model is also presented as a contribution to a more integrated theory of citation.
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:20:01
-
Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996)
0.02
0.019725805 = product of:
0.049314514 = sum of:
0.031211983 = weight(_text_:study in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031211983 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.21553972 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
0.018102532 = product of:
0.036205065 = sum of:
0.036205065 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036205065 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
-
Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998)
0.02
0.019725805 = product of:
0.049314514 = sum of:
0.031211983 = weight(_text_:study in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031211983 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.21553972 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
0.018102532 = product of:
0.036205065 = sum of:
0.036205065 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036205065 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044537213 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study to examine the patterns of self citation in 6 disciplines distributed among the physical and social sciences and humanities. Sample articles were examined to deermine the relative numbers and ages of self citations and citations to other in the bibliographies and to the exposure given to each type of citation in the text of the articles. significant differences were found in the number and age of citations between disciplines. Overall, 9% of all citations were self citations; 15% of physical sciences citations were self citations, as opposed to 6% in the social sciences and 3% in the humanities. Within disciplines, there was no significantly different amount of coverage between self citations and citations to others. Overall, it appears that a lack of substantive differences in self citation behaviour is consistent across disciplines
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:33:24
