Search (1277 results, page 1 of 64)

0.22441578 = product of:
  0.33662367 = sum of:
    0.32833803 = weight(_text_:sociology in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.32833803 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        1.0766765 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
    0.00828563 = product of:
      0.01657126 = sum of:
        0.01657126 = weight(_text_:of in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01657126 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 284, 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=284)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

0.16399194 = product of:
  0.2459879 = sum of:
    0.23452716 = weight(_text_:sociology in 1854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23452716 = score(doc=1854,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.76905465 = fieldWeight in 1854, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1854)
    0.011460752 = product of:
      0.022921504 = sum of:
        0.022921504 = weight(_text_:of in 1854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022921504 = score(doc=1854,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 1854, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1854)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In scientometrics, citer behavior is traditionally investigated using one of two main approaches. According to the normative point of view, the behavior of scientists is regulated by norms that make the detection of citation patterns useful for the interpretation of bibliometric measures. According to the constructivist perspective, citer behavior is influenced by other factors linked to the social and/or psychological sphere that do not allow any statistical inferences that are useful for the purposes of interpretation. An intermediate position supports normative theories in describing citer behavior with respect to high citation frequencies and constructivist theories with respect to low citation counts. In this paper, this idea was tested in a case study of the Italian sociology community. Italian sociology is characterized by an unusual organization into three "political" or "ideological" camps, and belonging to one camp can be considered a potentially strong constructivist reason to cite. An all-author co-citation analysis was performed to map the structure of the Italian sociology community and look for evidence of three camps. We did not expect to find evidence of this configuration in the co-citation map. The map, in fact, included authors who obtained high citation counts that are supposedly produced by a normative-oriented behavior. The results confirmed this hypothesis and showed that the clusters seemed to be divided according to topic and not by camp. Relevant scientific works were cited by the members of the entire community regardless of their membership in any particular camp.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.6, S.1178-1188

0.16351385 = product of:
  0.24527077 = sum of:
    0.23217005 = weight(_text_:sociology in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23217005 = score(doc=4709,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.7613253 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
    0.01310073 = product of:
      0.02620146 = sum of:
        0.02620146 = weight(_text_:of in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02620146 = score(doc=4709,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Describes a study which examined the scholarly literature of sociology. Tens of thousands of references from monographs and leading academic journals were analyzed. The relative rankings of authors who were highly cited in the monographic literature did not change in the journal literature of the same period. However, there was only a small overlap between the most highly cited authors based on the journal sample and those based on the monograph sample. The lack of correlation suggests that there may be 2 distinct populations of highly cited authors

Source

Journal of documentation. 53(1997) no.3, S.263-273

0.16318531 = product of:
  0.24477796 = sum of:
    0.23452716 = weight(_text_:sociology in 4454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23452716 = score(doc=4454,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.76905465 = fieldWeight in 4454, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4454)
    0.010250809 = product of:
      0.020501617 = sum of:
        0.020501617 = weight(_text_:of in 4454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020501617 = score(doc=4454,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4454, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4454)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Because of a greater coverage of documentary sources in many languages that is greater than that of traditional bibliographic databases, Google Scholar is an ideal tool for examining the social sciences in non-Anglophone countries. We have therefore used it to study the scholarly output and impact of three scientific disciplines, management, economics, and sociology, in Spain and France, comparing some of the results with those retrieved with Scopus. Our findings show that scientific articles are the predominant form of scholarly communication in Google Scholar for our selected fields and countries. In addition, our results indicate that in Google Scholar the vernacular languages of each country are more used than English in all cases, but economics in France. The opposite occurs in Scopus, except for the case of sociology articles in France We also show that books receive on average more citations than other published documents in Google Scholar. Finally, we demonstrate that publishing in English is associated with greater scholarly impact, except for the case of France in Google Scholar for articles in sociology and books in the three fields.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.1054-1066

0.13054825 = product of:
  0.19582237 = sum of:
    0.18762173 = weight(_text_:sociology in 5059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18762173 = score(doc=5059,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.61524373 = fieldWeight in 5059, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5059)
    0.008200646 = product of:
      0.016401293 = sum of:
        0.016401293 = weight(_text_:of in 5059) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016401293 = score(doc=5059,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 5059, 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=5059)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Thesauri have been used in the library and information science field to provide a standard descriptor language for indexers or searchers to use in an informations storage and retrieval system. One difficulty has been the maintenance and updating of thesauri since terms used to describe concepts change over time and vary between users. This study investigates a mechanism by which thesauri can be updated and maintained using citation, co-citation analysis and citation context analysis.

0.12508115 = product of:
  0.37524346 = sum of:
    0.37524346 = weight(_text_:sociology in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.37524346 = score(doc=5771,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        1.2304875 = fieldWeight in 5771, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5771)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Sociology. 9(1975), S.187-203

0.117731646 = product of:
  0.17659746 = sum of:
    0.16416901 = weight(_text_:sociology in 835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16416901 = score(doc=835,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.53833824 = fieldWeight in 835, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=835)
    0.012428444 = product of:
      0.024856888 = sum of:
        0.024856888 = weight(_text_:of in 835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024856888 = score(doc=835,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 835, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Bradford's law is widely used in collection development to identify the most productive periodicals, but does nott take into account the variables of frequency of publication and number of years of publication during a particular time span. Hence not all periodicals necessarily have the same opportunity to publish relevant articles. To test this hypothesis, the productivity of American sociology periodicals during 1987-91 was analysed and shown to correlate with frequency of publication and number of years of publication, giving a more accurate representation than using Bradford's law as originally formulated

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: A critical revision of Bradford's law

0.117100105 = product of:
  0.17565015 = sum of:
    0.16583575 = weight(_text_:sociology in 2374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16583575 = score(doc=2374,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.5438038 = fieldWeight in 2374, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2374)
    0.009814401 = product of:
      0.019628802 = sum of:
        0.019628802 = weight(_text_:of in 2374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019628802 = score(doc=2374,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 2374, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2374)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Four subjects - ecology, applied mathematics, sociology, and economics - were selected to assess whether there is a citation advantage between journal articles that have an open-access (OA) version on the Internet compared to those articles that are exclusively toll access (TA). Citations were counted using the Web of Science, and the OA status of articles was determined by searching OAIster, OpenDOAR, Google, and Google Scholar. Of a sample of 4,633 articles examined, 2,280 (49%) were OA and had a mean citation count of 9.04 whereas the mean for TA articles was 5.76. There appears to be a clear citation advantage for those articles that are OA as opposed to those that are TA. This advantage, however, varies between disciplines, with sociology having the highest citation advantage, but the lowest number of OA articles, from the sample taken, and ecology having the highest individual citation count for OA articles, but the smallest citation advantage. Tests of correlation or association between OA status and a number of variables were generally found to weak or inconsistent. The cause of this citation advantage has not been determined.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.12, S.1963-1972

0.11675325 = product of:
  0.17512988 = sum of:
    0.16416901 = weight(_text_:sociology in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16416901 = score(doc=3329,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.53833824 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
    0.010960858 = product of:
      0.021921717 = sum of:
        0.021921717 = weight(_text_:of in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021921717 = score(doc=3329,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article studies citation practices in the arts and humanities from a theoretical and conceptual viewpoint, drawing on studies from fields like linguistics, history, library & information science, and the sociology of science. The use of references in the humanities is discussed in connection with the growing interest in the possibilities of applying citation analysis to humanistic disciplines. The study shows how the use of references within the humanities is connected to concepts of originality, to intellectual organization, and to searching and writing. Finally, it is acknowledged that the use of references is connected to stylistic, epistemological, and organizational differences, and these differences must be taken into account when applying citation analysis to humanistic disciplines.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.310-318

0.10201152 = product of:
  0.15301727 = sum of:
    0.1407163 = weight(_text_:sociology in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1407163 = score(doc=4361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.4614328 = fieldWeight in 4361, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4361)
    0.01230097 = product of:
      0.02460194 = sum of:
        0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02460194 = score(doc=4361,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4361, 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=4361)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Flattery citations of editors, potential referees, and so on have been claimed to be a common strategy among academic authors. From a sociology of science perspective as well as from a citation analytical perspective, it is both an interesting claim and a consequential one. The article presents a citation analysis of the editorial board members entering the American Economic Review from 1984 to 2004 using a citation window of 11 years. To test the flattery citation hypothesis further, we have conducted a study applying the difference-in-differences estimator. We analyze the number of times the editors and editorial board members of the American Economic Review were cited in articles published in the journal itself as well as in a pool of documents comprising articles from the Journal of Political Economy and the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The results of the analyses do not support the existence of a flattery citation effect.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.5, S.807-818

0.10091283 = product of:
  0.15136924 = sum of:
    0.1407163 = weight(_text_:sociology in 3062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1407163 = score(doc=3062,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.4614328 = fieldWeight in 3062, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3062)
    0.010652951 = product of:
      0.021305902 = sum of:
        0.021305902 = weight(_text_:of in 3062) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021305902 = score(doc=3062,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 3062, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3062)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Contemporary models of interdisciplinary information transfer treat disciplines as such sharply bounded groups that boundary-crossing publication (contributions to disciplinary literatures authored by researchers from other disciplines) should be very difficult, if not impossible. Yet boundary-crossing authors can be identified in many disciplinary literatures. A study of 4 core journals in political science and sociology identified 199 articles between 1971 and 1990. Two-thirds of these articles had single authors, and only one in six had coauthors from the discipline of the journal in which they were published. Readership and use of these articles, as measured by citation rates, was only slightly below normal. The articles were judged successful in interdisciplinary information transfer in that they received more citation sfrom the disciplines with which their first authors were affiliated, and more citations from other disciplines than from either the discipline of publication or the first author's discipline. Results suggest that disciplinary boundaries are less restricitive than the literature suggests, and that boundary-crossing publications are involved in complex patterns of interdisciplinary information transfer

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.3, S.271-279

0.10007422 = product of:
  0.15011132 = sum of:
    0.1407163 = weight(_text_:sociology in 1725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1407163 = score(doc=1725,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.4614328 = fieldWeight in 1725, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1725)
    0.009395021 = product of:
      0.018790042 = sum of:
        0.018790042 = weight(_text_:of in 1725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018790042 = score(doc=1725,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 1725, 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=1725)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article focuses on why academic writers in computer science and sociology sometimes supply the reader with more details of citees' names than they need to: Why do citers name citees when using the Footnote System, and why do citers include citees' first names when using the Harvard System? These questions were investigated as part of a qualitative, interview-based study of citation behavior. A number of motivations were advanced by informants, including the desire for stylistic elegance, for informality, to make the text accessible to less informed readers, to mark a close relationship between citer and citee, to alert readers to a little known citee, and to acknowledge seminal sources. In a number of cases, however, informants were unable to offer any motivation, reporting that their behavior had been unconscious or accidental. The study underlines B. Cronin's (1984, 2005) argument that citation is a private and subjective process, and shows that interview-based studies afford the analyst insights into writers' citing practices which alternative methodologies cannot.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.6, S.1007-1011

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

0.08528864 = product of:
  0.12793295 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=25,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 25, 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=25)
    0.0106693795 = product of:
      0.021338759 = sum of:
        0.021338759 = weight(_text_:of in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021338759 = score(doc=25,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 25, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=25)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In single-authored bibliographies only single scientist distribution can be found. But in multi-authored bibliographies single scientists distribution, pairs distribution, triples distribution, etc., can be presented. Whereas regarding Lotka's law single scientists P distribution (both in single-authored and in multi-authored bibliographies) is of interest, in the future pairs P, Q distribution, triples P, Q, R distribution, etc. should be considered Starting with pair distribution, the following question arises in the present paper: Is there also any regularity or well-ordered structure for the distribution of coauthor pairs in journals in analogy to Lotka's law for the distribution of single authors? Usually, in information science "laws " or "regularities " (for example Lotka's law) are mathematical descriptions of observed data inform of functions; however explanations of these phenomena are mostly missing. By contrast, in this paper the derivation of a formula for describing the distribution of the number of co-author pairs will be presented based on wellknown regularities in socio psychology or sociology in conjunction with the Gestalt theory as explanation for well-ordered collaboration structures and production of scientific literature, as well as derivations from Lotka's law. The assumed regularities for the distribution of co-author pairs in journals could be shown in the co-authorship data (1980-1998) of the journals Science, Nature, Proc Nat Acad Sci USA and Phys Rev B Condensed Matter.

0.0850096 = product of:
  0.12751439 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 2114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=2114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 2114, 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=2114)
    0.010250809 = product of:
      0.020501617 = sum of:
        0.020501617 = weight(_text_:of in 2114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020501617 = score(doc=2114,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 2114, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2114)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Walters and Wilder describe the literature of later-life migration, a multi-disciplinary topic, and evaluate its bibliographic coverage in seven disciplinary and five multi-disciplinary databases. Multiple database searches and reviews of the references of found items discovered over 500 papers published between January 1990 and December 2000. These were then read to determine if late-life migration was their central focus, and to select those which presented noteworthy findings, innovative approaches, or were covering topics unseen elsewhere, and also were understandable to a broad readership, and generally available. One hundred and fifty five journal articles met these criteria and are the focus of the study. The core journals of sociology, economics, and demography are not major contributors, but three gerontology journals are in the top five. The top two journals have broad coverage, but the others tend to concentrate on one of five themes. The top five journals account for 40 % of papers and the top twelve 70%. Of nine papers cited 30 or more times seven appeared in the top 12 contributing journals. The median article in the study was indexed by six of the twelve databases, and 12% were indexed by more than 7 databases. The correlation between citation and number of databases indexing a paper is very low. Social Sciences Citation Index will 73% coverage. Typical overlap in the 12 databases is about 45%.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.14, S.1305-1312

0.083395176 = product of:
  0.12509276 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 4920, 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=4920)
    0.007829184 = product of:
      0.015658367 = sum of:
        0.015658367 = weight(_text_:of in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015658367 = score(doc=4920,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Citation indictors are increasingly used in some subject areas to support peer review in the evaluation of researchers and departments. Nevertheless, traditional journal-based citation indexes may be inadequate for the citation impact assessment of book-based disciplines. This article examines whether online citations from Google Books and Google Scholar can provide alternative sources of citation evidence. To investigate this, we compared the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations across seven book-based disciplines (archaeology; law; politics and international studies; philosophy; sociology; history; and communication, cultural, and media studies). Google Books and Google Scholar citations to books were 1.4 and 3.2 times more common than were Scopus citations, and their medians were more than twice and three times as high as were Scopus median citations, respectively. This large number of citations is evidence that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2147-2164

0.08258697 = product of:
  0.123880446 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 337, 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=337)
    0.006616868 = product of:
      0.013233736 = sum of:
        0.013233736 = weight(_text_:of in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013233736 = score(doc=337,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.7, S.1055-1065

0.070587926 = product of:
  0.105881885 = sum of:
    0.093810864 = weight(_text_:sociology in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093810864 = score(doc=2213,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.30762187 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
    0.012071025 = product of:
      0.02414205 = sum of:
        0.02414205 = weight(_text_:of in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02414205 = score(doc=2213,freq=52.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.35238793 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
              7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
                52.0 = termFreq=52.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 55(2004) no.4, S.363-365 (J.W. Schneider): "Theories and methods for mapping scientific frontiers have existed for decades-especially within quantitative studies of science. This book investigates mapping scientific frontiers from the perspective of visual thinking and visual exploration (visual communication). The central theme is construction of visual-spatial representations that may convey insights into the dynamic structure of scientific frontiers. The author's previous book, Information Visualisation and Virtual Environments (1999), also concerns some of the ideas behind and possible benefits of visual communication. This new book takes a special focus an knowledge visualization, particularly in relation to science literature. The book is not a technical tutorial as the focus is an principles of visual communication and ways that may reveal the dynamics of scientific frontiers. The new approach to science mapping presented is the culmination of different approaches from several disciplines, such as philosophy of science, information retrieval, scientometrics, domain analysis, and information visualization. The book therefore addresses an audience with different disciplinary backgrounds and tries to stimulate interdisciplinary research. Chapter 1, The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, introduces a range of examples that illustrate fundamental issues concerning visual communication in general and science mapping in particular. Chapter 2, Mapping the Universe, focuses an the basic principles of cartography for visual communication. Chapter 3, Mapping the Mind, turns the attention inward and explores the design of mind maps, maps that represent our thoughts, experience, and knowledge. Chapter 4, Enabling Techniques for Science Mapping, essentially outlines the author's basic approach to science mapping.
The title of Chapter 5, On the Shoulders of Giants, implies that knowledge of the structure of scientific frontiers in the immediate past holds the key to a fruitful exploration of people's intellectual assets. Chapter 6, Tracing Competing Paradigms explains how information visualization can draw upon the philosophical framework of paradigm shifts and thereby enable scientists to track the development of Competing paradigms. The final chapter, Tracking Latent Domain Knowledge, turns citation analysis upside down by looking at techniques that may reveal latent domain knowledge. Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization is an excellent book and is highly recommended. The book convincingly outlines general theories conceming cartography, visual communication, and science mapping-especially how metaphors can make a "big picture"simple and useful. The author likewise Shows how the GSA framework is based not only an technical possibilities but indeed also an the visualization principles presented in the beginning chapters. Also, the author does a fine job of explaining why the mapping of scientific frontiers needs a combined effort from a diverse range of underlying disciplines, such as philosophy of science, sociology of science, scientometrics, domain analyses, information visualization, knowledge discovery, and data mining.

0.06959857 = product of:
  0.104397856 = sum of:
    0.093810864 = weight(_text_:sociology in 3093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093810864 = score(doc=3093,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.30762187 = fieldWeight in 3093, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3093)
    0.010586989 = product of:
      0.021173978 = sum of:
        0.021173978 = weight(_text_:of in 3093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021173978 = score(doc=3093,freq=40.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 3093, product of:
              6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
                40.0 = termFreq=40.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3093)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

How do authors refer to Web-based information sources in their formal scientific publications? It is not yet weIl known how scientists and scholars actually include new types of information sources, available through the new media, in their published work. This article reports an a comparative study of the lists of references in 38 scientific journals in five different scientific and social scientific fields. The fields are sociology, library and information science, biochemistry and biotechnology, neuroscience, and the mathematics of computing. As is weIl known, references, citations, and hyperlinks play different roles in academic publishing and communication. Our study focuses an hyperlinks as attributes of references in formal scholarly publications. The study developed and applied a method to analyze the differential roles of publishing media in the analysis of scientific and scholarly literature references. The present secondary databases that include reference and citation data (the Web of Science) cannot be used for this type of research. By the automated processing and analysis of the full text of scientific and scholarly articles, we were able to extract the references and hyperlinks contained in these references in relation to other features of the scientific and scholarly literature. Our findings show that hyperlinking references are indeed, as expected, abundantly present in the formal literature. They also tend to cite more recent literature than the average reference. The large majority of the references are to Web instances of traditional scientific journals. Other types of Web-based information sources are less weIl represented in the lists of references, except in the case of pure e-journals. We conclude that this can be explained by taking the role of the publisher into account. Indeed, it seems that the shift from print-based to electronic publishing has created new roles for the publisher. By shaping the way scientific references are hyperlinking to other information sources, the publisher may have a large impact an the availability of scientific and scholarly information.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.14, S.1250-1260

0.06700444 = product of:
  0.10050666 = sum of:
    0.093810864 = weight(_text_:sociology in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093810864 = score(doc=3585,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.30762187 = fieldWeight in 3585, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3585)
    0.0066958 = product of:
      0.0133916 = sum of:
        0.0133916 = weight(_text_:of in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0133916 = score(doc=3585,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 3585, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Inhalt: Biblio/sciento/infor-metrics : terminological issues and early historical developments -- The empirical foundations of bibliometrics : the Science citation index -- The philosophical foundations of bibliometrics : Bernal, Merton, Price, Garfield, and Small -- The mathematical foundations of bibliometrics -- Maps and paradigms : bibliographic citations at the service of the history and sociology of science -- Impact factor and the evaluation of scientists : bibliographic citations at the service of science policy and management -- On the shoulders of dwarfs : citation as rhetorical device and the criticisms to the normative model -- Measuring scientific communication in the twentieth century : from bibliometrics to cybermetrics.