Search (83 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Marshakova-Shaikevich, I.: Bibliometric maps of field of science (2005) 0.05 
    0.045390923 = product of:
  0.10591215 = sum of:
    0.031131983 = weight(_text_:management in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031131983 = score(doc=1069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
    0.052964687 = weight(_text_:case in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052964687 = score(doc=1069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
    0.021815477 = product of:
      0.043630954 = sum of:
        0.043630954 = weight(_text_:studies in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043630954 = score(doc=1069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    Abstract
    The present paper is devoted to two directions in algorithmic classificatory procedures: the journal co-citation analysis as an example of citation networks and lexical analysis of keywords in the titles and texts. What is common to those approaches is the general idea of normalization of deviations of the observed data from the mathematical expectation. The application of the same formula leads to discovery of statistically significant links between objects (journals in one case, keywords - in the other). The results of the journal co-citation analysis are reflected in tables and map for field "Women's Studies" and for field "Information Science and Library Science". An experimental attempt at establishing textual links between words was carried out on two samples from SSCI Data base: (1) EDUCATION and (2) ETHICS. The EDUCATION file included 2180 documents (of which 751 had abstracts); the ETHICS file included 807 documents (289 abstracts). Some examples of the results of this pilot study are given in tabular form . The binary links between words discovered in this way may form triplets or other groups with more than two member words.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.6, S.1534-1547
  2. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.04 
    0.04339958 = product of:
  0.15189852 = sum of:
    0.061792135 = weight(_text_:case in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061792135 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
    0.09010638 = sum of:
      0.05090278 = weight(_text_:studies in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05090278 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.30860704 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
      0.039203603 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039203603 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    This comparative case study of the diffusion and nondiffusion over time of eight theories in the social sciences uses citation analysis, citation context analysis, content analysis, surveys of editorial review boards, and personal interviews with theorists to develop a model of the theory functions that facilitate theory diffusion throughout specific intellectual communities. Unlike previous work on the diffusion of theories as innovations, this theory functions model differs in several important respects from the findings of previous studies that employed Everett Rogers's classic typology of innovation characteristics that promote diffusion. The model is also presented as a contribution to a more integrated theory of citation.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
  3. Yoon, L.L.: ¬The performance of cited references as an approach to information retrieval (1994) 0.02 
    0.024926724 = product of:
  0.08724353 = sum of:
    0.061792135 = weight(_text_:case in 8219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061792135 = score(doc=8219,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 8219, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8219)
    0.02545139 = product of:
      0.05090278 = sum of:
        0.05090278 = weight(_text_:studies in 8219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05090278 = score(doc=8219,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.30860704 = fieldWeight in 8219, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Explores the relationship between the number of cited references used in a citation search and retrieval effectiveness. Focuses on analysing in terms of information retrieval effectiveness, the overlap among posting sets retrieved by various combinations of cited references. Findings from three case studies show the more cited references used for a citation search, the better the performance, in terms of retrieving more relevant documents, up to a point of diminishing returns. The overall level of overlap among relevant documents sets was found to be low. If only some of the cited references among many candidates are used for a citation search, a significant proportion of relevant documents may be missed. The characteristics of cited references showed that some variables are good indicators to predict relevance to a given question
  4. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.02 
    0.022590147 = product of:
  0.07906551 = sum of:
    0.062263966 = weight(_text_:management in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062263966 = score(doc=994,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.44688427 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.016801544 = product of:
      0.033603087 = sum of:
        0.033603087 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033603087 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
    Source
    Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.6, S.1451-1464
  5. Meho, L.I.; Sonnenwald, D.H.: Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance : a case study of Kurdish scholarship (2000) 0.02 
    0.021365764 = product of:
  0.074780166 = sum of:
    0.052964687 = weight(_text_:case in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052964687 = score(doc=4382,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
    0.021815477 = product of:
      0.043630954 = sum of:
        0.043630954 = weight(_text_:studies in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043630954 = score(doc=4382,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between citation ranking and peer evaluation in assessing senior faculty research performance. Other studies typically derive their peer evaluation data directly from referees, often in the form of ranking. This study uses two additional sources of peer evaluation data: citation contant analysis and book review content analysis. 2 main questions are investigated: (a) To what degree does citation ranking correlate with data from citation content analysis, book reviews and peer ranking? (b) Is citation ranking a valif evaluative indicator of research performance of senior faculty members? This study shows that citation ranking can provide a valid indicator for comparative evaluation of senior faculty research performance
  6. Chen, C.; Cribbin, T.; Macredie, R.; Morar, S.: Visualizing and tracking the growth of competing paradigms : two case studies (2002) 0.02 
    0.021365764 = product of:
  0.074780166 = sum of:
    0.052964687 = weight(_text_:case in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052964687 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 602, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=602)
    0.021815477 = product of:
      0.043630954 = sum of:
        0.043630954 = weight(_text_:studies in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043630954 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 602, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
  7. Nederhof, A.J.; Visser, M.S.: Quantitative deconstruction of citation impact indicators : waxing field impact but waning journal impact (2004) 0.02 
    0.021365764 = product of:
  0.074780166 = sum of:
    0.052964687 = weight(_text_:case in 4419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052964687 = score(doc=4419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 4419, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4419)
    0.021815477 = product of:
      0.043630954 = sum of:
        0.043630954 = weight(_text_:studies in 4419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043630954 = score(doc=4419,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 4419, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4419)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    In two case studies of research units, reference values used to benchmark research performance appeared to show contradictory results: the average citation level in the subfields (FCSm) increased world-wide, while the citation level of the journals (JCSm) decreased, where concomitant changes were expected. Explanations were sought in: a shift in preference of document types; a change in publication preference for subfields; and changes in journal coverage. Publishing in newly covered journals with a low impact had a negative effect on impact ratios. However, the main factor behind the increase in FCSm was the distribution of articles across the five-year block periods that were studied. Publication in lower impact journals produced a lagging JCSm. Actual values of JCSm, FCSm, and citations per publication (CPP) values are not very informative either about research performance, or about the development of impact over time in a certain subfield with block indicators. Normalized citation impact indicators are free from such effects and should be consulted primarily in research performance assessments.
  8. Shibata, N.; Kajikawa, Y.; Matsushima, K.: Topological analysis of citation networks to discover the future core articles (2007) 0.02 
    0.021365764 = product of:
  0.074780166 = sum of:
    0.052964687 = weight(_text_:case in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052964687 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
    0.021815477 = product of:
      0.043630954 = sum of:
        0.043630954 = weight(_text_:studies in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043630954 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    In this article, we investigated the factors determining the capability of academic articles to be cited in the future using a topological analysis of citation networks. The basic idea is that articles that will have many citations were in a "similar" position topologically in the past. To validate this hypothesis, we investigated the correlation between future times cited and three measures of centrality: clustering centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality. We also analyzed the effect of aging as well as of self-correlation of times cited. Case studies were performed in the two following recent representative innovations: Gallium Nitride and Complex Networks. The results suggest that times cited is the main factor in explaining the near future times cited, and betweenness centrality is correlated with the distant future times cited. The effect of topological position on the capability to be cited is influenced by the migrating phenomenon in which the activated center of research shifts from an existing domain to a new emerging domain.
  9. Pao, M.L.: Term and citation retrieval : a field study (1993) 0.02 
    0.020170461 = product of:
  0.07059661 = sum of:
    0.04150931 = weight(_text_:management in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04150931 = score(doc=3741,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 3741, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3741)
    0.029087303 = product of:
      0.058174606 = sum of:
        0.058174606 = weight(_text_:studies in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058174606 = score(doc=3741,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.35269377 = fieldWeight in 3741, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3741)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Investigates the relative efficacy of searching by terms and by citations in searches collected in health science libraries. In pilot and field studies the odds that overlap items retrieved would be relevant or partially relevant were greatly improved. In the field setting citation searching was able to add average of 24% recall to traditional subject retrieval. Attempts to identify distinguishing characteristics in queries which might benefit most from additional citation searches proved inclusive. Online access of citation databases has been hampered by their high cost
    Source
    Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.1, S.95-112
  10. Thelwall, M.: Extracting macroscopic information from Web links (2001) 0.02 
    0.019956294 = product of:
  0.069847025 = sum of:
    0.04413724 = weight(_text_:case in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04413724 = score(doc=6851,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
    0.025709787 = product of:
      0.051419575 = sum of:
        0.051419575 = weight(_text_:studies in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051419575 = score(doc=6851,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Much has been written about the potential and pitfalls of macroscopic Web-based link analysis, yet there have been no studies that have provided clear statistical evidence that any of the proposed calculations can produce results over large areas of the Web that correlate with phenomena external to the Internet. This article attempts to provide such evidence through an evaluation of Ingwersen's (1998) proposed external Web Impact Factor (WIF) for the original use of the Web: the interlinking of academic research. In particular, it studies the case of the relationship between academic hyperlinks and research activity for universities in Britain, a country chosen for its variety of institutions and the existence of an official government rating exercise for research. After reviewing the numerous reasons why link counts may be unreliable, it demonstrates that four different WIFs do, in fact, correlate with the conventional academic research measures. The WIF delivering the greatest correlation with research rankings was the ratio of Web pages with links pointing at research-based pages to faculty numbers. The scarcity of links to electronic academic papers in the data set suggests that, in contrast to citation analysis, this WIF is measuring the reputations of universities and their scholars, rather than the quality of their publications
  11. Zhao, D.: Challenges of scholarly publications on the Web to the evaluation of science : a comparison of author visibility on the Web and in print journals (2005) 0.02 
    0.017649153 = product of:
  0.061772034 = sum of:
    0.036320645 = weight(_text_:management in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036320645 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
    0.02545139 = product of:
      0.05090278 = sum of:
        0.05090278 = weight(_text_:studies in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05090278 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.30860704 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    This article reveals different patterns of scholarly communication in the XML research field on the Web and in print journals in terms of author visibility, and challenges the common practice of exclusively using the ISI's databases to obtain citation counts as scientific performance indicators. Results from this study demonstrate both the importance and the feasibility of the use of multiple citation data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication, and provide evidence for a developing "two tier" scholarly communication system.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.6, S.1403-1418
  12. Ma, N.; Guan, J.; Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2008) 0.01 
    0.013695294 = product of:
  0.047933526 = sum of:
    0.031131983 = weight(_text_:management in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031131983 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
    0.016801544 = product of:
      0.033603087 = sum of:
        0.033603087 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033603087 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2064, 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=2064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Date
    31. 7.2008 14:22:05
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.800-810
  13. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.01 
    0.013288807 = product of:
  0.046510823 = sum of:
    0.03530979 = weight(_text_:case in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03530979 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.01120103 = product of:
      0.02240206 = sum of:
        0.02240206 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02240206 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
  14. Leydesdorff, L.: On the normalization and visualization of author co-citation data : Salton's Cosine versus the Jaccard index (2008) 0.01 
    0.013105361 = product of:
  0.09173752 = sum of:
    0.09173752 = weight(_text_:case in 1341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09173752 = score(doc=1341,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.50479555 = fieldWeight in 1341, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1341)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    The debate about which similarity measure one should use for the normalization in the case of Author Co-citation Analysis (ACA) is further complicated when one distinguishes between the symmetrical co-citation - or, more generally, co-occurrence - matrix and the underlying asymmetrical citation - occurrence - matrix. In the Web environment, the approach of retrieving original citation data is often not feasible. In that case, one should use the Jaccard index, but preferentially after adding the number of total citations (i.e., occurrences) on the main diagonal. Unlike Salton's cosine and the Pearson correlation, the Jaccard index abstracts from the shape of the distributions and focuses only on the intersection and the sum of the two sets. Since the correlations in the co-occurrence matrix may be spurious, this property of the Jaccard index can be considered as an advantage in this case.
  15. Leydesdorff, L.; Opthof, T.: Citation analysis with medical subject Headings (MeSH) using the Web of Knowledge : a new routine (2013) 0.01 
    0.013105361 = product of:
  0.09173752 = sum of:
    0.09173752 = weight(_text_:case in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09173752 = score(doc=943,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.50479555 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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.
  16. Leydesdorff, L.; Moya-Anegón, F.de; Guerrero-Bote, V.P.: Journal maps on the basis of Scopus data : a comparison with the Journal Citation Reports of the ISI (2010) 0.01 
    0.01261064 = product of:
  0.08827448 = sum of:
    0.08827448 = weight(_text_:case in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08827448 = score(doc=3335,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.48573974 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Using the Scopus dataset (1996-2007) a grand matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations was constructed. This matrix can be compared in terms of the network structures with the matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI). Because the Scopus database contains a larger number of journals and covers the humanities, one would expect richer maps. However, the matrix is in this case sparser than in the case of the ISI data. This is because of (a) the larger number of journals covered by Scopus and (b) the historical record of citations older than 10 years contained in the ISI database. When the data is highly structured, as in the case of large journals, the maps are comparable, although one may have to vary a threshold (because of the differences in densities). In the case of interdisciplinary journals and journals in the social sciences and humanities, the new database does not add a lot to what is possible with the ISI databases.
  17. Trivison, D.: Term co-occurrence in cited/citing journal articles as a measure of document similarity (1987) 0.01 
    0.011859803 = product of:
  0.08301862 = sum of:
    0.08301862 = weight(_text_:management in 5656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08301862 = score(doc=5656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.5958457 = fieldWeight in 5656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5656)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 23(1987), S.183-194
  18. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.01 
    0.011033435 = product of:
  0.077234045 = sum of:
    0.077234045 = sum of:
      0.043630954 = weight(_text_:studies in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043630954 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
      0.033603087 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033603087 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
  19. Knothe, G.: Comparative citation analysis of duplicate or highly related publications (2006) 0.01 
    0.0109211365 = product of:
  0.07644795 = sum of:
    0.07644795 = weight(_text_:case in 213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07644795 = score(doc=213,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.420663 = fieldWeight in 213, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=213)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Four cases, illustrated by four examples, of duplicate or highly related publications can be distinguished and are analyzed here using citation data obtained from the Science Citation Index (SCI): (1) publication by different authors in the same journal; (2) the same author(s) publishing in different journals; (3) publication by different authors in different journals; (4) the same author(s) publishing highly related papers simultaneously in the same journal, often as part of a series of papers. Example 1, illustrating case 1, is an occurrence of highly related publications in mechanistic organic chemistry. Example 2, from analytical organic chemistry, contains elements of cases 2 and 3. Example 3, dealing solely with case 3, discusses two time-delayed publications from analytical biochemistry, which were highlighted by Garfield several times in the past to show how the SCI could be utilized to avoid duplicate publication. Example 4, derived from synthetic organic chemistry (total syntheses of taxol), contains elements of cases 1, 3, and 4 and, to a lesser extent, case 2. The citation records of the highly related or duplicate publications can deviate considerably from the journal impact factors; this was observed in three of the four examples relating to cases 2, 3, and 4. The examples suggest that citation of a paper may depend significantly on the journal in which it is published. As an indicator of this dependence, the journals in which the papers used in the present examples appeared were examined. Other factors such as key words in the paper title may also play a role.
  20. Kwok, K.L.: ¬The use of titles and cited titles as document representations for automatic classification (1975) 0.01 
    0.010377328 = product of:
  0.07264129 = sum of:
    0.07264129 = weight(_text_:management in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07264129 = score(doc=4347,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.521365 = fieldWeight in 4347, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4347)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 11(1975), S.201-206

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 78
  • d 5
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 81
  • el 3
  • m 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications