Search (188 results, page 1 of 10)

0.07778956 = product of:
  0.15557912 = sum of:
    0.01058955 = weight(_text_:information in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058955 = score(doc=3880,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
    0.108150855 = weight(_text_:united in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108150855 = score(doc=3880,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.43829006 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
    0.03683871 = product of:
      0.07367742 = sum of:
        0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07367742 = score(doc=3880,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

The number and type of Web citations to journal articles in four areas of science are examined: biology, genetics, medicine, and multidisciplinary sciences. For a sample of 5,972 articles published in 114 journals, the median Web citation counts per journal article range from 6.2 in medicine to 10.4 in genetics. About 30% of Web citations in each area indicate intellectual impact (citations from articles or class readings, in contrast to citations from bibliographic services or the author's or journal's home page). Journals receiving more Web citations also have higher percentages of citations indicating intellectual impact. There is significant correlation between the number of citations reported in the databases from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now Thomson Scientific) and the number of citations retrieved using the Google search engine (Web citations). The correlation is much weaker for journals published outside the United Kingdom or United States and for multidisciplinary journals. Web citation numbers are higher than ISI citation counts, suggesting that Web searches might be conducted for an earlier or a more fine-grained assessment of an article's impact. The Web-evident impact of non-UK/USA publications might provide a balance to the geographic or cultural biases observed in ISI's data, although the stability of Web citation counts is debatable.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.10, S.1075-1087

0.07576944 = product of:
  0.15153888 = sum of:
    0.015563398 = weight(_text_:information in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015563398 = score(doc=1015,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1015, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1015)
    0.09176904 = weight(_text_:united in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09176904 = score(doc=1015,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 1015, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1015)
    0.044206448 = product of:
      0.088412896 = sum of:
        0.088412896 = weight(_text_:states in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.088412896 = score(doc=1015,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 1015, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1015)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

This article provides an overview of studies that have used citation analysis in the field of humanities in the period 1951 to 2010. The work is based on an exhaustive search in databases-particularly those in library and information science-and on citation chaining from papers on citation analysis. The results confirm that use of this technique in the humanities is limited, and although there was some growth in the 1970s and 1980s, it has stagnated in the past 2 decades. Most of the work has been done by research staff, but almost one third involves library staff, and 15% has been done by students. The study also showed that less than one fourth of the works used a citation database such as the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and that 21% of the works were in publications other than library and information science journals. The United States has the greatest output, and English is by far the most frequently used language, and 13.9% of the studies are in other languages.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.8, S.1751-1755

0.060400426 = product of:
  0.12080085 = sum of:
    0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007487943 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
    0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0764742 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
    0.03683871 = product of:
      0.07367742 = sum of:
        0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07367742 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Previous analyses identified research on environmental tobacco smoke to be subject to strong fluctuations as measured by both quantitative and qualitative indicators. The evolution of search algorithms (based on the Web of Science and Web of Knowledge database platforms) was used to show the impact of errors of omission and commission in the outcomes of scientometric research. Optimization of the search algorithm led to the complete reassessment of previously published findings on the performance of environmental tobacco smoke research. Instead of strong continuous growth, the field of environmental tobacco smoke research was shown to experience stagnation or slow growth since mid-1990s when evaluated quantitatively. Qualitative analysis revealed steady but slow increase in the citation rate and decrease in uncitedness. Country analysis revealed the North-European countries as leaders in environmental tobacco smoke research (when the normalized results were evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively), whereas the United States ranked first only when assessing the total number of papers produced. Scientometric research artifacts, including both errors of omission and commission, were shown to be capable of completely obscuring the real output of the chosen research field.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.334-344

0.048639305 = product of:
  0.1459179 = sum of:
    0.08697598 = weight(_text_:networks in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08697598 = score(doc=5129,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.4180698 = fieldWeight in 5129, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5129)
    0.05894193 = product of:
      0.11788386 = sum of:
        0.11788386 = weight(_text_:states in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11788386 = score(doc=5129,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.48671678 = fieldWeight in 5129, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5129)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

States that it can be shown that claims of a lack of theories of citation are also indicative of a great need for a theory which links science dynamics and measurement. There is a wide gap between qualitative (science dynamics) and quantitative (measurement) approaches. To link them, proposes the use of the citation system, that potentially bridges a gap between measurement and epistemology, by applying system theory to the publication system

0.04743303 = product of:
  0.14229909 = sum of:
    0.010483121 = weight(_text_:information in 5126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010483121 = score(doc=5126,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5126, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5126)
    0.13181597 = weight(_text_:networks in 5126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13181597 = score(doc=5126,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.6336034 = fieldWeight in 5126, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5126)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The construction of virtual science landscapes based on citation networks and the strategic use of the information therein shed new light on the issues of the evolution of the science system and possibilities for control. Leydesdorff's approach to citation theory described in his 1998 article (see this issue of LISA) takes into account the dual layered character of communication networks and the second order nature of the science system. This perspective may help to sharpen the awareness of scientists and science policy makers for possible feedback loops within actions and activities in the science system, and probably nonlinear phenomena resulting therefrom. Sketches an additional link to geometrically oriented evolutionary theories and uses a specific landscape concept as a framework for some comments

0.040656883 = product of:
  0.121970646 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
    0.11298511 = weight(_text_:networks in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11298511 = score(doc=286,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.5430886 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.6, S.872-882

0.030309785 = product of:
  0.09092935 = sum of:
    0.014825371 = weight(_text_:information in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014825371 = score(doc=2809,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
    0.07610398 = weight(_text_:networks in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07610398 = score(doc=2809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.36581108 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Provides a synoptic review and history of citation indexes and their evolution into research evaluation tools including a discussion of the use of bibliometric data for evaluating US institutions (academic departments) by the National Research Council (NRC). Covers the origin and uses of periodical impact factors, validation studies of citation analysis, information retrieval and dissemination (current awareness), citation consciousness, historiography and science mapping, Citation Classics, and the history of contemporary science. Illustrates the retrieval of information by cited reference searching, especially as it applies to avoiding duplicated research. Discusses the 15 year cumulative impacts of periodicals and the percentage of uncitedness, the emergence of scientometrics, old boy networks, and citation frequency distributions. Concludes with observations about the future of citation indexing

0.029155392 = product of:
  0.08746617 = sum of:
    0.01058955 = weight(_text_:information in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058955 = score(doc=839,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
    0.076876625 = weight(_text_:networks in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076876625 = score(doc=839,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.369525 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report an investigation into the social and citation networks of three information scientists: David Nicholas, Peter Williams and Paul Huntington. Design/methodology/approach - Similarities between citation patterns and social closeness were identified and discussed. A total of 16 individuals in the citation network were identified and investigated using citation analysis, and a matrix formed of citations made between those in the network. Social connections between the 16 in the citation network were then investigated by means of a questionnaire, the results of which were merged into a separate matrix. These matrices were converted into visual social networks, using multidimensional scaling. A new deviance measure was devised for drawing comparisons between social and citation closeness in individual cases. Findings - Nicholas, Williams and Huntington were found to have cited 527 authors in the period 2000-2003, the 16 most cited becoming the subjects of further citation and social investigation. This comparison, along with the examination of visual representations indicates a positive correlation between social closeness and citation counts. Possible explanations for this correlation are discussed, and implications considered. Despite this correlation, the information scientists were found to cite widely outside their immediate social connections. Originality/value - Social network analysis has not been often used in combination with citation analysis to explore inter-relationships in research teams.

0.028991994 = product of:
  0.17395195 = sum of:
    0.17395195 = weight(_text_:networks in 6904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17395195 = score(doc=6904,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.8361396 = fieldWeight in 6904, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6904)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.028862368 = product of:
  0.0865871 = sum of:
    0.010483121 = weight(_text_:information in 7827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010483121 = score(doc=7827,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 7827, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7827)
    0.07610398 = weight(_text_:networks in 7827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07610398 = score(doc=7827,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.36581108 = fieldWeight in 7827, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7827)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Reviews the scale, range and consistency of acknowledgement behaviour, in citations, for a number of academic disciplines. The qualitative and quantitative evidence suggests a pervasive and consistent practice in which acknowledgements define a variety of social, cognitive and instrumental relationships between scholars and within and across disciplines. As such they may be used alongside other bibliometric indicators, such as citations, to map networks of influence. Considers the case for using acknowledgements data in the assessment of academic performance and proposes an online acknowledgement index to facilitate this process, perhaps as a logical extension of ISI's citation indexing products

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Learned Information

0.028121524 = product of:
  0.08436457 = sum of:
    0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007487943 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
    0.076876625 = weight(_text_:networks in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076876625 = score(doc=3763,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.369525 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

References from publications are at the same time citations to other publications. This entry introduces some of the practical uses of citation data in science and scholarship. At the individual level citations identify and permit the retrieval of specific editions of works, while also suggesting their subject matter, authority, and age. Through citation indexes, retrievals may include not only the earlier items referred to by a given work, but also the later items that cite that given work in turn. Some technical notes on retrieval are included here. Counts of citations received over time, and measures derived from them, reveal the varying impacts of works, authors, journals, organizations, and countries. This has obvious implications for the evaluation of, e.g., library collections, academics, research teams, and science policies. When treated as linkages between pairs of publications, references and citations reveal intellectual ties. Several kinds of links have been defined, such as cocitation, bibliographic coupling, and intercitation. In the aggregate, these links form networks that compactly suggest the intellectual histories of research specialties and disciplines, especially when the networks are visualized through mapping software. Citation analysis is of course not without critics, who have long pointed out imperfections in the data or in analytical techniques. However, the criticisms have generally been met by strong counterarguments from proponents.

Source

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

0.028121524 = product of:
  0.08436457 = sum of:
    0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007487943 = score(doc=948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
    0.076876625 = weight(_text_:networks in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076876625 = score(doc=948,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.369525 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Main path analysis is a popular method for extracting the scientific backbone from the citation network of a research domain. Existing approaches ignored the semantic relationships between the citing and cited publications, resulting in several adverse issues, in terms of coherence of main paths and coverage of significant studies. This paper advocated the semantic main path network analysis approach to alleviate these issues based on citation function analysis. A wide variety of SciBERT-based deep learning models were designed for identifying citation functions. Semantic citation networks were built by either including important citations, for example, extension, motivation, usage and similarity, or excluding incidental citations like background and future work. Semantic main path network was built by merging the top-K main paths extracted from various time slices of semantic citation network. In addition, a three-way framework was proposed for the quantitative evaluation of main path analysis results. Both qualitative and quantitative analysis on three research areas of computational linguistics demonstrated that, compared to semantics-agnostic counterparts, different types of semantic main path networks provide complementary views of scientific knowledge flows. Combining them together, we obtained a more precise and comprehensive picture of domain evolution and uncover more coherent development pathways between scientific ideas.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.5, S.546-569

0.026931792 = product of:
  0.08079538 = sum of:
    0.015563398 = weight(_text_:information in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015563398 = score(doc=1080,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
    0.06523198 = weight(_text_:networks in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06523198 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.31355235 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Author searching is traditionally based on the matching of name strings. Special characteristics of authors as personal names and subject indicators are not considered. This makes it difficult to identify a set of related authors or to group authors by subjects in retrieval systems. In this paper, we describe the design and implementation of a prototype visualization system to enhance author searching. The system, called AuthorLink, is based on author co-citation analysis and visualization mapping algorithms such as Kohonen's feature maps and Pathfinder networks. AuthorLink produces interactive author maps in real time from a database of 1.26 million records supplied by the Institute for Scientific Information. The maps show subject groupings and more fine-grained intellectual connections among authors. Through the interactive interface the user can take advantage of such information to refine queries and retrieve documents through point-and-click manipulation of the authors' names.

Source

Information processing and management. 39(2003) no.5, S.689-706

0.025979813 = product of:
  0.077939436 = sum of:
    0.012707461 = weight(_text_:information in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012707461 = score(doc=1069,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
    0.06523198 = weight(_text_:networks in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06523198 = score(doc=1069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.31355235 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.024739172 = product of:
  0.07421751 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
    0.06523198 = weight(_text_:networks in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06523198 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.31355235 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Search results for nine topics in the medical behavioral sciences are reanalyzed to compare the overall perfor-mance of descriptor and citation search strategies in identifying relevant and novel documents. Overlap per- centages between an aggregate "descriptor-based" database (MEDLINE, EXERPTA MEDICA, PSYCINFO) and an aggregate "citation-based" database (SCISEARCH, SOCIAL SCISEARCH) ranged from 1% to 26%, with a median overlap of 8% relevant retrievals found using both search strategies. For seven topics in which both descriptor and citation strategies produced reasonably substantial retrievals, two patterns of search performance and novelty distribution were observed: (1) where descriptor and citation retrieval showed little overlap, novelty retrieval percentages differed by 17-23% between the two strategies; (2) topics with a relatively high percentage retrieval overlap shoed little difference (1-4%) in descriptor and citation novelty retrieval percentages. These results reflect the varying partial congruence of two literature networks and represent two different types of subject relevance

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 40(1989), S.110-114

0.024739172 = product of:
  0.07421751 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=970,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 970, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=970)
    0.06523198 = weight(_text_:networks in 970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06523198 = score(doc=970,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.31355235 = fieldWeight in 970, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=970)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The increasing employment of bibliometric measures for assessing, describing, and mapping science inevitably leads to the increasing need for a citation theory constituting a theoretical frame for both citation analysis and the description of citers' behavior. In this article a theoretical model, encompassing both normative and constructivist approaches, is suggested. The conceptualization of scientific communities as autopoietic systems, the components of which are communicative events, allows us to observe the reproductive function of citations conceived as codes and media of scientific communication. Citations, thanks to their constraining and enabling properties, constitute the engine of the structuration process ensuring the reproduction of scientific communities. By referring to Giddens' structuration theory, Luhmann's theory about social systems as communicative networks, Merton's "sociology of science" and his conceptualizations about the functions of citations, as well as Small's proposal about citations as concept-symbols, a sociologically integrated approach to scientometrics is proposed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.7, S.1442-1453

0.023878481 = product of:
  0.07163544 = sum of:
    0.023961417 = weight(_text_:information in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023961417 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.047674023 = product of:
      0.095348045 = sum of:
        0.095348045 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095348045 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, 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=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx

0.021649845 = product of:
  0.064949535 = sum of:
    0.01058955 = weight(_text_:information in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058955 = score(doc=82,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
    0.054359984 = weight(_text_:networks in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054359984 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Aggregated journal-journal citation networks based on the Journal Citation Reports 2004 of the Science Citation Index (5,968 journals) and the Social Science Citation Index (1,712 journals) are made accessible from the perspective of any of these journals. A vector-space model Is used for normalization, and the results are brought online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr04 as input files for the visualization program Pajek. The user is thus able to analyze the citation environment in terms of links and graphs. Furthermore, the local impact of a journal is defined as its share of the total citations in the specific journal's citation environments; the vertical size of the nodes is varied proportionally to this citation impact. The horizontal size of each node can be used to provide the same information after correction for within-journal (self-)citations. In the "citing" environment, the equivalents of this measure can be considered as a citation activity index which maps how the relevant journal environment is perceived by the collective of authors of a given journal. As a policy application, the mechanism of Interdisciplinary developments among the sciences is elaborated for the case of nanotechnology journals.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.1, S.25-38

0.019038055 = product of:
  0.057114165 = sum of:
    0.014975886 = weight(_text_:information in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014975886 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
    0.04213828 = product of:
      0.08427656 = sum of:
        0.08427656 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08427656 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

Source

Information Research. 6(2001), no.2

0.017319877 = product of:
  0.05195963 = sum of:
    0.008471641 = weight(_text_:information in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008471641 = score(doc=2095,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
    0.04348799 = weight(_text_:networks in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04348799 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.2090349 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Many authors have posited a social component in citation, the consensus being that the citers and citees often have interpersonal as well as intellectual ties. Evidence for this belief has been rather meager, however, in part because social networks researchers have lacked bibliometric data (e.g., pairwise citation counts from online databases), and citation analysts have lacked sociometric data (e.g., pairwise measures of acquaintanceship). In 1997 Nazer extensively measured personal relationships and communication behaviors in what we call "Globenet," an international group of 16 researchers from seven disciplines that was established in 1993 to study human development. Since Globenet's membership is known, it was possible during 2002 to obtain citation records for all members in databases of the Institute for Scientific Information. This permitted examination of how members cited each other (intercited) in journal articles over the past three decades and in a 1999 book to which they all contributed. It was also possible to explore links between the intercitation data and the social and communication data. Using network-analytic techniques, we look at the growth of intercitation over time, the extent to which it follows disciplinary or interdisciplinary lines, whether it covaries with degrees of acquaintanceship, whether it reflects Globenet's organizational structure, whether it is associated with particular in-group communication patterns, and whether it is related to the cocitation of Globenet members. Results show cocitation to be a powerful predictor of intercitation in the journal articles, while being an editor or co-author is an important predictor in the book. Intellectual ties based an shared content did better as predictors than content-neutral social ties like friendship. However, interciters in Globenet communicated more than did noninterciters.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.2, S.111-126