Search (65 results, page 1 of 4)

0.08630966 = product of:
  0.12946448 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=3095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
    0.012200902 = product of:
      0.024401804 = sum of:
        0.024401804 = weight(_text_:of in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024401804 = score(doc=3095,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix - based on the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Science Citation Index - can be decomposed by indexers or algorithmically. In this study, we test the results of two recently available algorithms for the decomposition of large matrices against two content-based classifications of journals: the ISI Subject Categories and the field/subfield classification of Glänzel and Schubert (2003). The content-based schemes allow for the attribution of more than a single category to a journal, whereas the algorithms maximize the ratio of within-category citations over between-category citations in the aggregated category-category citation matrix. By adding categories, indexers generate between-category citations, which may enrich the database, for example, in the case of inter-disciplinary developments. Algorithmic decompositions, on the other hand, are more heavily skewed towards a relatively small number of categories, while this is deliberately counter-acted upon in the case of content-based classifications. Because of the indexer effects, science policy studies and the sociology of science should be careful when using content-based classifications, which are made for bibliographic disclosure, and not for the purpose of analyzing latent structures in scientific communications. Despite the large differences among them, the four classification schemes enable us to generate surprisingly similar maps of science at the global level. Erroneous classifications are cancelled as noise at the aggregate level, but may disturb the evaluation locally.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.9, S.1823-1835

0.020072233 = product of:
  0.0602167 = sum of:
    0.0602167 = sum of:
      0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02460194 = score(doc=4460,freq=24.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
            4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
              24.0 = termFreq=24.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

Source

Journal of documentation. 59(2003) no.1, S.84-104

0.019357719 = product of:
  0.058073156 = sum of:
    0.058073156 = sum of:
      0.022458395 = weight(_text_:of in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022458395 = score(doc=4681,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.

Date

8. 1.2019 18:22:45

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.198-201

0.018134935 = product of:
  0.054404803 = sum of:
    0.054404803 = sum of:
      0.018790042 = weight(_text_:of in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018790042 = score(doc=2761,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2761, 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=2761)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

International co-authorship relations and university-industry-government (Triple Helix) relations have hitherto been studied separately. Using Japanese publication data for the 1981-2004 period, we were able to study both kinds of relations in a single design. In the Japanese file, 1,277,030 articles with at least one Japanese address were attributed to the three sectors, and we know additionally whether these papers were coauthored internationally. Using the mutual information in three and four dimensions, respectively, we show that the Japanese Triple-Helix system has been continuously eroded at the national level. However, since the mid-1990s, international coauthorship relations have contributed to a reduction of the uncertainty at the national level. In other words, the national publication system of Japan has developed a capacity to retain surplus value generated internationally. In a final section, we compare these results with an analysis based on similar data for Canada. A relative uncoupling of national university-industry-government relations because of international collaborations is indicated in both countries.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:07:20

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.778-788

0.018026924 = product of:
  0.05408077 = sum of:
    0.05408077 = sum of:
      0.024401804 = weight(_text_:of in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024401804 = score(doc=4186,freq=34.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
            5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
              34.0 = termFreq=34.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
      0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029678967 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.

Date

22. 1.2011 12:51:07

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.217-229

0.005348352 = product of:
  0.016045054 = sum of:
    0.016045054 = product of:
      0.03209011 = sum of:
        0.03209011 = weight(_text_:of in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03209011 = score(doc=4466,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.46840128 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Fractional counting of citations can improve on ranking of multidisciplinary research units (such as universities) by normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of differences in citation behavior. Furthermore, normalization in terms of citing papers abolishes the unsolved questions in scientometrics about the delineation of fields of science in terms of journals and normalization when comparing among different (sets of) journals. Using publication and citation data of seven Korean research universities, we demonstrate the advantages and the differences in the rankings, explain the possible statistics, and suggest ways to visualize the differences in (citing) audiences in terms of a network.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1146-1155

0.004880361 = product of:
  0.014641082 = sum of:
    0.014641082 = product of:
      0.029282164 = sum of:
        0.029282164 = weight(_text_:of in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029282164 = score(doc=453,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.4274153 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.9, S.1303-1319

0.0047346456 = product of:
  0.014203937 = sum of:
    0.014203937 = product of:
      0.028407874 = sum of:
        0.028407874 = weight(_text_:of in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028407874 = score(doc=147,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.41465378 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Analyses and compares in term of co-occurrences and co-absenses of words in a restricted set of full-text articles from a sub-specialty of biochemistry. By using the distribution of words over the section, a clear distinction among 'theoretical' 'observation', and 'methodological' terminology can be made in individual articles. However, at the level of the set this structure is no longer retrieval: Words change both in terms of frequencies of relations with other words, and in terms of positional meaning from 1 text to another. The fluidity of networks in which nodes and links may chenge positions is ecpected to destabilise representations of developments of the sciences on the basis of co-occurrences and co-absenses of words. Discusses the consequences for the lexicographic approach to generating artificial intelligence from scientific texts

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 48(1997) no.5, S.418-427

0.004730534 = product of:
  0.014191601 = sum of:
    0.014191601 = product of:
      0.028383203 = sum of:
        0.028383203 = weight(_text_:of in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028383203 = score(doc=1200,freq=46.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.41429368 = fieldWeight in 1200, product of:
              6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
                46.0 = termFreq=46.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Portfolio analysis of the publication profile of a unit of interest, ranging from individuals and organizations to a scientific field or interdisciplinary programs, aims to inform analysts and decision makers about the position of the unit, where it has been, and where it may go in a complex adaptive environment. A portfolio analysis may aim to identify the gap between the current position of an organization and a goal that it intends to achieve or identify competencies of multiple institutions. We introduce a new visual analytic method for analyzing, comparing, and contrasting characteristics of publication portfolios. The new method introduces a novel design of dual-map thematic overlays on global maps of science. Each publication portfolio can be added as one layer of dual-map overlays over 2 related, but distinct, global maps of science: one for citing journals and the other for cited journals. We demonstrate how the new design facilitates a portfolio analysis in terms of patterns emerging from the distributions of citation threads and the dynamics of trajectories as a function of space and time. We first demonstrate the analysis of portfolios defined on a single source article. Then we contrast publication portfolios of multiple comparable units of interest; namely, colleges in universities and corporate research organizations. We also include examples of overlays of scientific fields. We expect that our method will provide new insights to portfolio analysis.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.334-351

0.0045800544 = product of:
  0.013740162 = sum of:
    0.013740162 = product of:
      0.027480325 = sum of:
        0.027480325 = weight(_text_:of in 8281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027480325 = score(doc=8281,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 8281, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes a method for the generation of journal-journal citation maps on the basis of the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index. Discusses sources of potential error from this data. Offers strategies to counteract such errors. Analyzes a number of scientometric periodical mappings in relation to mappings from previous studies which have used tape data and/or data from ISI's Journal Citation Reports. Compares the quality of these mappings with the quality of those for previous years in order to demonstrate the use of such mappings as indicators for dynamic developments in the sciences

0.0045800544 = product of:
  0.013740162 = sum of:
    0.013740162 = product of:
      0.027480325 = sum of:
        0.027480325 = weight(_text_:of in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027480325 = score(doc=5130,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Citations support the communication of specialist knowledge by allowing authors and readers to make specific selections in several contexts at the same time. In the interactions between the social network of authors and the network of their reflexive communications, a sub textual code of communication with a distributed character has emerged. Citation analysis reflects on citation practices. Reference lists are aggregated in scientometric analysis using one of the available contexts to reduce the complexity: geometrical representations of dynamic operations are reflected in corresponding theories of citation. The specific contexts represented in the modern citation can be deconstructed from the perspective of the cultural evolution of scientific communication

Footnote

Lead paper in a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'

0.0045800544 = product of:
  0.013740162 = sum of:
    0.013740162 = product of:
      0.027480325 = sum of:
        0.027480325 = weight(_text_:of in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027480325 = score(doc=1249,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Can the inclusion of new journals in the Science Citation Index be used for the indication of structural change in the database, and how can this change be compared with reorganizations of reiations among previously included journals? Change in the number of journals (n) is distinguished from change in the number of journal categories (m). Although the number of journals can be considered as a given at each moment in time, the number of journal categories is based an a reconstruction that is time-stamped ex post. The reflexive reconstruction is in need of an update when new information becomes available in a next year. Implications of this shift towards an evolutionary perspective are specified.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.12, S.987-994

0.004267752 = product of:
  0.012803256 = sum of:
    0.012803256 = product of:
      0.025606511 = sum of:
        0.025606511 = weight(_text_:of in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025606511 = score(doc=1108,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.11, S.2299-2309

0.0041003237 = product of:
  0.01230097 = sum of:
    0.01230097 = product of:
      0.02460194 = sum of:
        0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02460194 = score(doc=4813,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Methods developed for mapping the journal structure contained in aggregated journal-journal citations in the Science Citation Index (SCI; Thomson ISI, 2002) are applied to the Chinese Science Citation Database of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. This database covered 991 journals in 2001, of which only 37 originally had English titles; only 31 of which were covered by the SCI. Using factor-analytical and graph-analytical techniques, the authors show that the journal relations are dually structured. The main structure is the intellectual organization of the journals in journal groups (as in the international SCI), but the university-based journals provide an institutional layer that orients this structure towards practical ends (e.g., agriculture). This mechanism of integration is further distinguished from the role of general science journals. The Chinese Science Citation Database thus exhibits the characteristics of "Mode 2" or transdisciplinary science in the production of scientific knowledge more than its Western counterpart does. The contexts of application lead to correlation among the components.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.14, S.1469-1479

0.0041003237 = product of:
  0.01230097 = sum of:
    0.01230097 = product of:
      0.02460194 = sum of:
        0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 1361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02460194 = score(doc=1361,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 1361, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1361)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Aging of publications, percentage of self-citations, and impact vary from journal to journal within fields of science. The assumption that citation and publication practices are homogenous within specialties and fields of science is invalid. Furthermore, the delineation of fields and among specialties is fuzzy. Institutional units of analysis and persons may move between fields or span different specialties. The match between the citation index and institutional profiles varies among institutional units and nations. The respective matches may heavily affect the representation of the units. Non-Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) journals are increasingly cornered into transdisciplinary Mode-2 functions with the exception of specialist journals publishing in languages other than English. An externally cited impact factor can be calculated for these journals. The citation impact of non-ISI journals will be demonstrated using Science and Public Policy as the example.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.2, S.278-287

0.0041003237 = product of:
  0.01230097 = sum of:
    0.01230097 = product of:
      0.02460194 = sum of:
        0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 4107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02460194 = score(doc=4107,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4107, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Impact factors (and similar measures such as the Scimago Journal Rankings) suffer from two problems: (a) citation behavior varies among fields of science and, therefore, leads to systematic differences, and (b) there are no statistics to inform us whether differences are significant. The recently introduced "source normalized impact per paper" indicator of Scopus tries to remedy the first of these two problems, but a number of normalization decisions are involved, which makes it impossible to test for significance. Using fractional counting of citations-based on the assumption that impact is proportionate to the number of references in the citing documents-citations can be contextualized at the paper level and aggregated impacts of sets can be tested for their significance. It can be shown that the weighted impact of Annals of Mathematics (0.247) is not so much lower than that of Molecular Cell (0.386) despite a five-f old difference between their impact factors (2.793 and 13.156, respectively).

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.11, S.2365-2369

0.0041003237 = product of:
  0.01230097 = sum of:
    0.01230097 = product of:
      0.02460194 = sum of:
        0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02460194 = score(doc=943,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Citation analysis of documents retrieved from the Medline database (at the Web of Knowledge) has been possible only on a case-by-case basis. A technique is presented here for citation analysis in batch mode using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) at the Web of Knowledge and the Science Citation Index at the Web of Science (WoS). This freeware routine is applied to the case of "Brugada Syndrome," a specific disease and field of research (since 1992). The journals containing these publications, for example, are attributed to WoS categories other than "cardiac and cardiovascular systems", perhaps because of the possibility of genetic testing for this syndrome in the clinic. With this routine, all the instruments available for citation analysis can now be used on the basis of MeSH terms. Other options for crossing between Medline, WoS, and Scopus are also reviewed.

Object

Web of Knowledge

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1076-1080

0.0041003237 = product of:
  0.01230097 = sum of:
    0.01230097 = product of:
      0.02460194 = sum of:
        0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02460194 = score(doc=1187,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Using the referencing patterns in articles in Cognitive Science over three decades, we analyze the knowledge base of this literature in terms of its changing disciplinary composition. Three periods are distinguished: (A) construction of the interdisciplinary space in the 1980s, (B) development of an interdisciplinary orientation in the 1990s, and (C) reintegration into "cognitive psychology" in the 2000s. The fluidity and fuzziness of the interdisciplinary delineations in the different visualizations can be reduced and clarified using factor analysis. We also explore newly available routines ("CorText") to analyze this development in terms of "tubes" using an alluvial map and compare the results with an animation (using "Visone"). The historical specificity of this development can be compared with the development of "artificial intelligence" into an integrated specialty during this same period. Interdisciplinarity should be defined differently at the level of journals and of specialties.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.164-177

0.0041003237 = product of:
  0.01230097 = sum of:
    0.01230097 = product of:
      0.02460194 = sum of:
        0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02460194 = score(doc=2224,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 2224, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We present a novel routine, namely medlineR, based on the R language, that allows the user to match data from Medline/PubMed with records indexed in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) database. The matching allows exploiting the rich and controlled vocabulary of medical subject headings (MeSH) of Medline/PubMed with additional fields of WoS. The integration provides data (e.g., citation data, list of cited reference, list of the addresses of authors' host organizations, WoS subject categories) to perform a variety of scientometric analyses. This brief communication describes medlineR, the method on which it relies, and the steps the user should follow to perform the matching across the two databases. To demonstrate the differences from Leydesdorff and Opthof (Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1076-1080), we conclude this artcle by testing the routine on the MeSH category "Burgada syndrome."

Object

Web of Science

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.10, S.2155-2159

0.0040669674 = product of:
  0.012200902 = sum of:
    0.012200902 = product of:
      0.024401804 = sum of:
        0.024401804 = weight(_text_:of in 6524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024401804 = score(doc=6524,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 6524, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6524)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Fields of technoscience like biotechnology develop in a network mode: disciplinary insights from different backgrounds are recombined as competing innovation systems are continuously reshaped. The ongoing process of integration at the European level generates an additional network of transnational collaborations. Using the title words of scientific publications in five core journals of biotechnology, multivariate analysis is used to distinguish between the intellectual organization of the publications in terms of title words and the institutional network in terms of addresses of documents. The interaction among the representation of intellectual space in terms of words and co-words, and the potentially European network system is compared with the document sets with American and Japanese addresses. The European system can also be decomposed in terms of the contributions of member states. Whereas a European vocabulary can be made visible at the global level, this communality disappears by this decomposition. The network effect at the European level can be considered as institutional more than cognitive

Footnote

Vgl. auch die Stellungnahme von P. van den Besselaar: Empirical evidence of self-organization? in: JASIST 54(2003) no.1, S.87-90.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.14, S.1262-1274