Search (56 results, page 3 of 3)

0.0029591531 = product of:
  0.008877459 = sum of:
    0.008877459 = product of:
      0.017754918 = sum of:
        0.017754918 = weight(_text_:of in 4461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017754918 = score(doc=4461,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 4461, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Software programs are among the most important tools in data-driven research. The popularity of well-known packages and corresponding large numbers of citations received bear testimony of the contribution of scientific software to academic research. Yet software is not generally recognized as an academic outcome. In this study, a usage-based model is proposed with varied indicators including citations, mentions, and downloads to measure the importance of scientific software. We performed an investigation on a sample of international bioinformatics research articles, and on a sample from the Chinese community. Our analysis shows that scientists in the field of bioinformatics rely heavily on scientific software: the major differences between the international community and the Chinese example being how scientific packages are mentioned in publications and the time gap between the introduction of a package and its use. Biologists publishing in international journals tend to apply the latest tools earlier; Chinese scientists publishing in Chinese tend to follow later. Further, journals with higher impact factors tend to publish articles applying the latest tools earlier.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.9, S.1122-1133

0.0028993662 = product of:
  0.008698098 = sum of:
    0.008698098 = product of:
      0.017396197 = sum of:
        0.017396197 = weight(_text_:of in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017396197 = score(doc=4384,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

One aim of science evaluation studies is to determine quantitatively the contribution of different players (authors, departments, countries) to the whole system. This information is then used to study the evolution of the system, for instance to gauge the results of special national or international programs. Taking articles as our basic data, we want to determine the exact relative contribution of each coauthor or each country. These numbers are brought together to obtain country scores, or department scores, etc. It turns out, as we will show in this article, that different scoring methods can yield totally different rankings. Conseqeuntly, a ranking between countries, universities, research groups or authors, based on one particular accrediting methods does not contain an absolute truth about their relative importance

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.2, S.145-157

0.0028993662 = product of:
  0.008698098 = sum of:
    0.008698098 = product of:
      0.017396197 = sum of:
        0.017396197 = weight(_text_:of in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017396197 = score(doc=5154,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The notions aging, obsolescence, impact, growth, utilization, and their relations are studied. It is shown how to correct an observed citation distribution for growth, once the growth distribution is known. The relation of this correction procedure with the calculation of impact measures is explained. More interestingly, we have shown how the influence of growth on aging can be studied over a complete period as a whole. Here, the difference between the so-called average and global aging distributions is the main factor. Our main result is that growth can influence aging but that it does not cause aging. A short overview of some classical articles on this topic is given. Results of these earlier works are placed in the framework set up in this article

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.11, S.1004-1017

0.0027618767 = product of:
  0.00828563 = sum of:
    0.00828563 = product of:
      0.01657126 = sum of:
        0.01657126 = weight(_text_:of in 6069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01657126 = score(doc=6069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 6069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2389

0.0027335489 = product of:
  0.008200646 = sum of:
    0.008200646 = product of:
      0.016401293 = sum of:
        0.016401293 = weight(_text_:of in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016401293 = score(doc=4487,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 4487, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A bibliometric method for analyzing and visualizing national research profiles is adapted to describe national preferences for publishing particular document types. Similarities in national profiles and national peculiarities are discussed based on the publication output of the 26 most active countries indexed in the Web of Science annual volume 2007.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.7, S.1403-1411

0.0027335489 = product of:
  0.008200646 = sum of:
    0.008200646 = product of:
      0.016401293 = sum of:
        0.016401293 = weight(_text_:of in 3210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016401293 = score(doc=3210,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 3210, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this communication I give a brief introduction to Valiant's probably approximately correct (PAC) theory, provide an extension that goes beyond Valiant's ideas (and beyond the domain for which this theory was meant), and come to an interpretation in terms of research evaluation. As such, PAC provides a framework for a theory of research evaluation.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3092-3094

0.0026467475 = product of:
  0.007940242 = sum of:
    0.007940242 = product of:
      0.015880484 = sum of:
        0.015880484 = weight(_text_:of in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015880484 = score(doc=1189,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article examines whether the absolute and relative numbers of reviews are increasing in the following three subfields of medical sciences: Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases, and Oncology. It further examines if reviews are cited more frequently than are "normal" articles. All research questions are answered affirmatively: The absolute as well as the relative numbers of reviews in these three subfields are indeed increasing. In addition, reviews in these fields are cited more frequently than are normal articles: about 70% more often than are "normal" articles in Infectious Diseases and Oncology and about 50% more often in Tropical Medicine. The article discusses possible reasons for this increase and concludes that medical journals should strive to achieve an optimal balance between review papers and original articles.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.201-205

0.0024161388 = product of:
  0.007248416 = sum of:
    0.007248416 = product of:
      0.014496832 = sum of:
        0.014496832 = weight(_text_:of in 5226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014496832 = score(doc=5226,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 5226, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Aims to inform researchers about metrics so that they become aware of the evaluative techniques being applied to their scientific output. Understanding these concepts will help them during their funding initiatives, and in hiring and tenure. The book not only describes what indicators do (or are designed to do, which is not always the same thing), but also gives precise mathematical formulae so that indicators can be properly understood and evaluated. Metrics have become a critical issue in science, with widespread international discussion taking place on the subject across scientific journals and organizations. As researchers should know the publication-citation context, the mathematical formulae of indicators being used by evaluating committees and their consequences, and how such indicators might be misused, this book provides an ideal tome on the topic. Provides researchers with a detailed understanding of bibliometric indicators and their applications. Empowers researchers looking to understand the indicators relevant to their work and careers. Presents an informed and rounded picture of bibliometrics, including the strengths and shortcomings of particular indicators. Supplies the mathematics behind bibliometric indicators so they can be properly understood. Written by authors with longstanding expertise who are considered global leaders in the field of bibliometrics

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 7304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=7304,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 7304, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

It is shown that generalized Leimkuhler functions give proper fits to a large variety of Bradford curves, including those exhibited a so-called Groos droop or a rising tail

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 1864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=1864,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 1864, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1864)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1518-1519

0.0022319334 = product of:
  0.0066958 = sum of:
    0.0066958 = product of:
      0.0133916 = sum of:
        0.0133916 = weight(_text_:of in 3267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0133916 = score(doc=3267,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 3267, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3267)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Topologies for information retrieval systems are generated by certain subsets, called retrievals. Shows how recall and precision can be expressed using only retrievals. Investigates different types of retrieval systems: both threshold systems and close match systems and both optimal and non optimal retrieval. Highlights the relation with the hypergeometric and some non-standard distributions

0.0022319334 = product of:
  0.0066958 = sum of:
    0.0066958 = product of:
      0.0133916 = sum of:
        0.0133916 = weight(_text_:of in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0133916 = score(doc=6759,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Using a power-law model, the two best-known topics in citation analysis, namely the impact factor and the Hirsch index, are unified into one relation (not a function). The validity of our model is, at least in a qualitative way, confirmed by real data.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2362-2365

0.0022319334 = product of:
  0.0066958 = sum of:
    0.0066958 = product of:
      0.0133916 = sum of:
        0.0133916 = weight(_text_:of in 3795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0133916 = score(doc=3795,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 3795, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this entry we formulate the so-called informetric laws, recall their origin, indicate how it can be shown that they are basically equivalent representations of the same regularity, hint at some explanations, such as success-breeds-success or preferential attachment, and describe why they are so ubiquitous.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0015782153 = product of:
  0.0047346456 = sum of:
    0.0047346456 = product of:
      0.009469291 = sum of:
        0.009469291 = weight(_text_:of in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009469291 = score(doc=647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of documentation. 53(1997) no.5, S.499-496

0.0015782153 = product of:
  0.0047346456 = sum of:
    0.0047346456 = product of:
      0.009469291 = sum of:
        0.009469291 = weight(_text_:of in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009469291 = score(doc=1746,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.10, S.1404-1405

0.0015782153 = product of:
  0.0047346456 = sum of:
    0.0047346456 = product of:
      0.009469291 = sum of:
        0.009469291 = weight(_text_:of in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009469291 = score(doc=695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 695, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=695)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

An h-type index is proposed which depends on the obtained citations of articles belonging to the h-core. This weighted h-index, denoted as hw, is presented in a continuous setting and in a discrete one. It is shown that in a continuous setting the new index enjoys many good properties. In the discrete setting some small deviations from the ideal may occur.