Search (440 results, page 1 of 22)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013) 0.15 
    0.15006445 = product of:
  0.5252256 = sum of:
    0.2626128 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2626128 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.35045066 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
    0.2626128 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2626128 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.35045066 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Content
    Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
  2. Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015) 0.06 
    0.060519602 = product of:
  0.1412124 = sum of:
    0.036689393 = weight(_text_:management in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036689393 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.0847222 = weight(_text_:europe in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0847222 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25178367 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.01980081 = product of:
      0.03960162 = sum of:
        0.03960162 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03960162 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    17. 9.2018 18:22:23
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.1, S.27-54
  3. Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014) 0.05 
    0.046924356 = product of:
  0.16423523 = sum of:
    0.08827448 = weight(_text_:case in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08827448 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.48573974 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
    0.075960755 = sum of:
      0.03635913 = weight(_text_:studies in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03635913 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.03960162 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03960162 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.
  4. 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
  5. Egghe, L.: On the law of Zipf-Mandelbrot for multi-word phrases (1999) 0.04 
    0.04325829 = product of:
  0.15140401 = sum of:
    0.12231671 = weight(_text_:case in 3058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12231671 = score(doc=3058,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.6730608 = fieldWeight in 3058, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3058)
    0.029087303 = product of:
      0.058174606 = sum of:
        0.058174606 = weight(_text_:studies in 3058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058174606 = score(doc=3058,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.35269377 = fieldWeight in 3058, 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=3058)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    This article studies the probabilities of the occurence of multi-word (m-word) phrases (m=2,3,...) in relation to the probabilities of occurence of the single words. It is well known that, in the latter case, the lae of Zipf is valid (i.e., a power law). We prove that in the case of m-word phrases (m>=2), this is not the case. We present 2 independent proof of this
  6. Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986) 0.04 
    0.036520787 = product of:
  0.12782274 = sum of:
    0.08301862 = weight(_text_:management in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08301862 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.5958457 = fieldWeight in 5509, 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=5509)
    0.04480412 = product of:
      0.08960824 = sum of:
        0.08960824 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08960824 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
  7. Kumar, S.: Co-authorship networks : a review of the literature (2015) 0.04 
    0.036125302 = product of:
  0.12643856 = sum of:
    0.031131983 = weight(_text_:management in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031131983 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2586, 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=2586)
    0.095306575 = sum of:
      0.06170349 = weight(_text_:studies in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06170349 = score(doc=2586,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 2586, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2586)
      0.033603087 = weight(_text_:22 in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033603087 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2586, 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=2586)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to attempt to provide a review of the growing literature on co-authorship networks and the research gaps that may be investigated for future studies in this field. Design/methodology/approach - The existing literature on co-authorship networks was identified, evaluated and interpreted. Narrative review style was followed. Findings - Co-authorship, a proxy of research collaboration, is a key mechanism that links different sets of talent to produce a research output. Co-authorship could also be seen from the perspective of social networks. An in-depth analysis of such knowledge networks provides an opportunity to investigate its structure. Patterns of these relationships could reveal, for example, the mechanism that shapes our scientific community. The study provides a review of the expanding literature on co-authorship networks. Originality/value - This is one of the first comprehensive reviews of network-based studies on co-authorship. The field is fast evolving, opening new gaps for potential research. The study identifies some of these gaps.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.1, S.55-73
  8. Liu, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Towards a representation of diffusion and interaction of scientific ideas : the case of fiber optics communication (2012) 0.04 
    0.035345122 = product of:
  0.12370792 = sum of:
    0.036320645 = weight(_text_:management in 2723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036320645 = score(doc=2723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 2723, 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=2723)
    0.08738727 = weight(_text_:case in 2723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08738727 = score(doc=2723,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.48085782 = fieldWeight in 2723, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2723)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    The research question studied in this contribution is how to find an adequate representation to describe the diffusion of scientific ideas over time. We claim that citation data, at least of articles that act as concept symbols, can be considered to contain this information. As a case study we show how the founding article by Nobel Prize winner Kao illustrates the evolution of the field of fiber optics communication. We use a continuous description of discrete citation data in order to accentuate turning points and breakthroughs in the history of this field. Applying the principles explained in this contribution informetrics may reveal the trajectories along which science is developing.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 48(2012) no.4, S.791-801
  9. Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.-D.: What is behind the curtain of the Leiden Ranking? (2015) 0.04 
    0.035280608 = product of:
  0.12348212 = sum of:
    0.101666644 = weight(_text_:europe in 2171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.101666644 = score(doc=2171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25178367 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.4037857 = fieldWeight in 2171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2171)
    0.021815477 = product of:
      0.043630954 = sum of:
        0.043630954 = weight(_text_:studies in 2171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043630954 = score(doc=2171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 2171, 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=2171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Even with very well-documented rankings of universities, it is difficult for an individual university to reconstruct its position in the ranking. What is the reason behind whether a university places higher or lower in the ranking? Taking the example of ETH Zurich, the aim of this communication is to reconstruct how the high position of ETHZ (in Europe rank no. 1 in PP[top 10%]) in the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) Leiden Ranking 2013 in the field "social sciences, arts and humanities" came about. According to our analyses, the bibliometric indicator values of a university depend very strongly on weights that result in differing estimates of both the total number of a university's publications and the number of publications with a citation impact in the 90th percentile, or PP(top 10%). In addition, we examine the effect of weights at the level of individual publications. Based on the results, we offer recommendations for improving the Leiden Ranking (for example, publication of sample calculations to increase transparency).
  10. Zhang, Y.: ¬The impact of Internet-based electronic resources on formal scholarly communication in the area of library and information science : a citation analysis (1998) 0.03 
    0.034313716 = product of:
  0.120097995 = sum of:
    0.04413724 = weight(_text_:case in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04413724 = score(doc=2808,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 2808, 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=2808)
    0.075960755 = sum of:
      0.03635913 = weight(_text_:studies in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03635913 = score(doc=2808,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
      0.03960162 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03960162 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Internet based electronic resources are growing dramatically but there have been no empirical studies evaluating the impact of e-sources, as a whole, on formal scholarly communication. reports results of an investigation into how much e-sources have been used in formal scholarly communication, using a case study in the area of Library and Information Science (LIS) during the period 1994 to 1996. 4 citation based indicators were used in the study of the impact measurement. Concludes that, compared with the impact of print sources, the impact of e-sources on formal scholarly communication in LIS is small, as measured by e-sources cited, and does not increase significantly by year even though there is observable growth of these impact across the years. It is found that periodical format is related to the rate of citing e-sources, articles are more likely to cite e-sources than are print priodical articles. However, once authors cite electronic resource, there is no significant difference in the number of references per article by periodical format or by year. Suggests that, at this stage, citing e-sources may depend on authors rather than the periodical format in which authors choose to publish
    Date
    30. 1.1999 17:22:22
  11. Marchionini, G.: Co-evolution of user and organizational interfaces : a longitudinal case study of WWW dissemination of national statistics (2002) 0.03 
    0.03223962 = product of:
  0.11283866 = sum of:
    0.08738727 = weight(_text_:case in 1252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08738727 = score(doc=1252,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.48085782 = fieldWeight in 1252, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1252)
    0.02545139 = product of:
      0.05090278 = sum of:
        0.05090278 = weight(_text_:studies in 1252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05090278 = score(doc=1252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.30860704 = fieldWeight in 1252, 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=1252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    The data systems, policies and procedures, corporate culture, and public face of an agency or institution make up its organizational interface. This case study describes how user interfaces for the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site evolved over a 5-year period along with the [arger organizational interface and how this co-evolution has influenced the institution itself. Interviews with BLS staff and transaction log analysis are the foci in this analysis that also included user informationseeking studies and user interface prototyping and testing. The results are organized into a model of organizational interface change and related to the information life cycle.
  12. Meho, L.I.; Sugimoto, C.R.: Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies : a tale of two citation databases - Scopus and Web of Science (2009) 0.03 
    0.03021575 = product of:
  0.10575512 = sum of:
    0.07490338 = weight(_text_:case in 3298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07490338 = score(doc=3298,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 3298, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3298)
    0.030851744 = product of:
      0.06170349 = sum of:
        0.06170349 = weight(_text_:studies in 3298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06170349 = score(doc=3298,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 3298, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    This study uses citations, from 1996 to 2007, to the work of 80 randomly selected full-time, information studies (IS) faculty members from North America to examine differences between Scopus and Web of Science in assessing the scholarly impact of the field focusing on the most frequently citing journals, conference proceedings, research domains and institutions, as well as all citing countries. Results show that when assessment is limited to smaller citing entities (e.g., journals, conference proceedings, institutions), the two databases produce considerably different results, whereas when assessment is limited to larger citing entities (e.g., research domains, countries), the two databases produce very similar pictures of scholarly impact. In the former case, the use of Scopus (for journals and institutions) and both Scopus and Web of Science (for conference proceedings) is necessary to more accurately assess or visualize the scholarly impact of IS, whereas in the latter case, assessing or visualizing the scholarly impact of IS is independent of the database used.
  13. Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017) 0.03 
    0.028828064 = product of:
  0.06726548 = sum of:
    0.020754656 = weight(_text_:management in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020754656 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.03530979 = weight(_text_:case in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03530979 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)
    0.01120103 = product of:
      0.02240206 = sum of:
        0.02240206 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02240206 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.5, S.557-575
  14. Gantman, E.R.; Dabós, M.P.: Research output and impact of the fields of management, economics, and sociology in Spain and France : an analysis using Google Scholar and Scopus (2018) 0.03 
    0.028316822 = product of:
  0.099108875 = sum of:
    0.036689393 = weight(_text_:management in 4454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036689393 = score(doc=4454,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 4454, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4454)
    0.062419478 = weight(_text_:case in 4454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062419478 = score(doc=4454,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.34346986 = fieldWeight in 4454, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4454)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    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.
  15. Quoniam, L.: Bibliometric law used for information retrieval (1998) 0.03 
    0.028032223 = product of:
  0.09811278 = sum of:
    0.036320645 = weight(_text_:management in 1162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036320645 = score(doc=1162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 1162, 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=1162)
    0.061792135 = weight(_text_:case in 1162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061792135 = score(doc=1162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 1162, 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=1162)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Zipf's law was used to qualify all the key words of documents in a data set. This qualification was used to build a graphical representation of the resulting indicator in each document. The graphical resolution leads to a document dispatch in a 3 dimensional space. This graphical representation was used as an information retrieval tool without using any keyword. The presentation of a case study is available on the WWW. The graph is drawn in VRML allowing a dynamic picture which is linked to a database management system (FreeWAIS)
  16. Egghe, L.: Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship (2008) 0.03 
    0.02763396 = product of:
  0.096718855 = sum of:
    0.07490338 = weight(_text_:case in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07490338 = score(doc=2004,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
    0.021815477 = product of:
      0.043630954 = sum of:
        0.043630954 = weight(_text_:studies in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043630954 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 2004, 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=2004)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    This article studies the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index of authors, in case one counts authorship of the cited articles in a fractional way. There are two ways to do this: One counts the citations to these papers in a fractional way or one counts the ranks of the papers in a fractional way as credit for an author. In both cases, we define the fractional h- and g-indexes, and we present inequalities (both upper and lower bounds) between these fractional h- and g-indexes and their corresponding unweighted values (also involving, of course, the coauthorship distribution). Wherever applicable, examples and counterexamples are provided. In a concrete example (the publication citation list of the present author), we make explicit calculations of these fractional h- and g-indexes and show that they are not very different from the unweighted ones.
  17. Egghe, L.; Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.: Thoughts on uncitedness : Nobel laureates and Fields medalists as case studies (2011) 0.03 
    0.02763396 = product of:
  0.096718855 = sum of:
    0.07490338 = weight(_text_:case in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07490338 = score(doc=4994,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
    0.021815477 = product of:
      0.043630954 = sum of:
        0.043630954 = weight(_text_:studies in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043630954 = score(doc=4994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 4994, 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=4994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Contrary to what one might expect, Nobel laureates and Fields medalists have a rather large fraction (10% or more) of uncited publications. This is the case for (in total) 75 examined researchers from the fields of mathematics (Fields medalists), physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine (Nobel laureates). We study several indicators for these researchers, including the h-index, total number of publications, average number of citations per publication, the number (and fraction) of uncited publications, and their interrelations. The most remarkable result is a positive correlation between the h-index and the number of uncited articles. We also present a Lotkaian model, which partially explains the empirically found regularities.
  18. Leydesdorff, L.; Probst, C.: ¬The delineation of an interdisciplinary specialty in terms of a journal set : the case of communication studies (2009) 0.03 
    0.027598757 = product of:
  0.096595645 = sum of:
    0.052964687 = weight(_text_:case in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052964687 = score(doc=2952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 2952, 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=2952)
    0.043630954 = product of:
      0.08726191 = sum of:
        0.08726191 = weight(_text_:studies in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08726191 = score(doc=2952,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.52904063 = fieldWeight in 2952, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    A journal set in an interdisciplinary or newly developing area can be determined by including the journals classified under the most relevant ISI Subject Categories into a journal-journal citation matrix. Despite the fuzzy character of borders, factor analysis of the citation patterns enables us to delineate the specific set by discarding the noise. This methodology is illustrated using communication studies as a hybrid development between political science and social psychology. The development can be visualized using animations which support the claim that a specific journal set in communication studies is increasingly developing, notably in the being cited patterns. The resulting set of 28 journals in communication studies is smaller and more focused than the 45 journals classified by the ISI Subject Categories as Communication. The proposed method is tested for its robustness by extending the relevant environments to sets including many more journals.
  19. Olensky, M.; Schmidt, M.; Eck, N.J. van: Evaluation of the citation matching algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to the Web of science (2016) 0.03 
    0.02683069 = product of:
  0.09390741 = sum of:
    0.062419478 = weight(_text_:case in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062419478 = score(doc=3130,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.34346986 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
    0.03148793 = product of:
      0.06297586 = sum of:
        0.06297586 = weight(_text_:studies in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06297586 = score(doc=3130,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.3818022 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    The results of bibliometric studies provided by bibliometric research groups, for example, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) and the Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance (iFQ), are often used in the process of research assessment. Their databases use Web of Science (WoS) citation data, which they match according to their own matching algorithms-in the case of CWTS for standard usage in their studies and in the case of iFQ on an experimental basis. Because the problem of nonmatched citations in the WoS persists due to inaccuracies in the references or inaccuracies introduced in the data extraction process, it is important to ascertain how well these inaccuracies are rectified in these citation matching algorithms. This article evaluates the algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to the WoS in a quantitative and a qualitative analysis. The analysis builds upon the method and the manually verified corpus of a previous study. The algorithm of CWTS performs best, closely followed by that of iFQ. The WoS algorithm still performs quite well (F1 score: 96.41%), but shows deficits in matching references containing inaccuracies. An additional problem is posed by incorrectly provided cited reference information in source articles by the WoS.
  20. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996) 0.03 
    0.026201406 = product of:
  0.09170492 = sum of:
    0.07490338 = weight(_text_:case in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07490338 = score(doc=7659,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
    0.016801544 = product of:
      0.033603087 = sum of:
        0.033603087 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033603087 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 426
  • d 12
  • dk 1
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 433
  • m 6
  • el 5
  • r 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications