Search (1168 results, page 1 of 59)

0.17952964 = product of:
  0.26929444 = sum of:
    0.01058955 = weight(_text_:information in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058955 = score(doc=1505,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1505, 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=1505)
    0.076876625 = weight(_text_:networks in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076876625 = score(doc=1505,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.369525 = fieldWeight in 1505, 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=1505)
    0.108150855 = weight(_text_:united in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108150855 = score(doc=1505,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.43829006 = fieldWeight in 1505, 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=1505)
    0.07367742 = product of:
      0.14735484 = sum of:
        0.14735484 = weight(_text_:states in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14735484 = score(doc=1505,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.608396 = fieldWeight in 1505, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(4/6)

Abstract

International coauthorship relations have increasingly shaped another dynamic in the natural and life sciences during recent decades. However, much less is known about such internationalization in the social sciences. In this study, we analyze international and domestic coauthorship relations of all citable items in the DVD version of the Social Sciences Citation Index 2011 (SSCI). Network statistics indicate 4 groups of nations: (a) an Asian-Pacific one to which all Anglo-Saxon nations (including the United Kingdom and Ireland) are attributed, (b) a continental European one including also the Latin-American countries, (c) the Scandinavian nations, and (d) a community of African nations. Within the EU-28, 11 of the EU-15 states have dominant positions. In many respects, the network parameters are not so different from the Science Citation Index. In addition to these descriptive statistics, we address the question of the relative weights of the international versus domestic networks. An information-theoretical test is proposed at the level of organizational addresses within each nation; the results are mixed, but the international dimension is more important than the national one in the aggregated sets (as in the Science Citation Index). In some countries (e.g., France), however, the national distribution is leading more than the international one. Decomposition of the United States in terms of states shows a similarly mixed result; more U.S. states are domestically oriented in the SSCI and more internationally in the SCI. The international networks have grown during the last decades in addition to the national ones but not by replacing them.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.10, S.2111-2126

0.15147431 = product of:
  0.30294862 = sum of:
    0.0129694985 = weight(_text_:information in 2940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0129694985 = score(doc=2940,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2940, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2940)
    0.21630171 = weight(_text_:united in 2940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21630171 = score(doc=2940,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.8765801 = fieldWeight in 2940, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2940)
    0.07367742 = product of:
      0.14735484 = sum of:
        0.14735484 = weight(_text_:states in 2940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14735484 = score(doc=2940,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.608396 = fieldWeight in 2940, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

We investigate the contributions of particular disciplines, countries, and academic departments to the literature of library and information science (LIS) using data for the articles published in 31 journals from 2007 to 2012. In particular, we examine the contributions of authors outside the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada; faculty in departments other than LIS; and practicing librarians. Worldwide, faculty in LIS departments account for 31% of the journal literature; librarians, 23%; computer science faculty, 10%; and management faculty, 10%. The top contributing nations are the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, China, Canada, and Taiwan. Within the United States and the United Kingdom, the current productivity of LIS departments is correlated with past productivity and with other measures of reputation and performance. More generally, the distribution of contributions is highly skewed. In the United States, five departments account for 27% of the articles contributed by LIS faculty; in the United Kingdom, four departments account for nearly two-thirds of the articles. This skewed distribution reinforces the possibility that high-status departments may gain a permanent advantage in the competition for students, faculty, journal space, and research funding. At the same time, concentrations of research-active faculty in particular departments may generate beneficial spillover effects.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.6, S.1487-1506

0.13178499 = product of:
  0.19767748 = sum of:
    0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 1616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007487943 = score(doc=1616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1616, 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=1616)
    0.076876625 = weight(_text_:networks in 1616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076876625 = score(doc=1616,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.369525 = fieldWeight in 1616, 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=1616)
    0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 1616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0764742 = score(doc=1616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 1616, 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=1616)
    0.03683871 = product of:
      0.07367742 = sum of:
        0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 1616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07367742 = score(doc=1616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 1616, 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=1616)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(4/6)

Abstract

Previous studies of international scientific collaboration have rarely gone beyond revealing the structural relationships between countries. Considering how scientific collaboration is actually initiated, this study focuses on the organization and sector levels of international coauthorship networks, going beyond a country-level description. Based on a network analysis of coauthorship networks between members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), this study attempts to gain a better understanding of international scientific collaboration by exploring the structure of the coauthorship network in terms of university-industry-government (UIG) relationships, the mode of knowledge production, and the underlying dynamic of collaboration in terms of geographic, linguistic, and economic factors. The results suggest that the United States showed overwhelming dominance in all bilateral UIG combinations with the exception of the government-government (GG) network. Scientific collaboration within the industry sector was concentrated in a few players, whereas that between the university and industry sectors was relatively less concentrated. Despite the growing participation from other sectors, universities were still the main locus of knowledge production, with the exception of 5 countries. The university sector in English-speaking wealthy countries and the government sector of non-English-speaking, less-wealthy countries played a key role in international collaborations between OECD countries. The findings did not provide evidence supporting the institutional proximity argument.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.1, S.201-212

0.11705688 = product of:
  0.23411375 = sum of:
    0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007487943 = score(doc=70,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 70, 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=70)
    0.1529484 = weight(_text_:united in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1529484 = score(doc=70,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.61983573 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
    0.07367742 = product of:
      0.14735484 = sum of:
        0.14735484 = weight(_text_:states in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14735484 = score(doc=70,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.608396 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Multivariate linear regression models suggest a trade-off in allocations of national research and development (R&D). Government funding and spending in the higher education sector encourage publications as a long-term research benefit. Conversely, other components such as industrial funding and spending in the business sector encourage patenting. Our results help explain why the United States trails the European Union in publications: The focus in the United States is on industrial funding-some 70% of its total R&D investment. Likewise, our results also help explain why the European Union trails the United States in patenting, since its focus on government funding is less effective than industrial funding in predicting triadic patenting. Government funding contributes negatively to patenting in a multiple regression, and this relationship is significant in the case of triadic patenting. We provide new forecasts about the relationships of the United States, the European Union, and China for publishing; these results suggest much later dates for changes than previous forecasts because Chinese growth has been slowing down since 2003. Models for individual countries might be more successful than regression models whose parameters are averaged over a set of countries because nations can be expected to differ historically in terms of the institutional arrangements and funding schemes.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.3, S.498-511

0.11246149 = product of:
  0.22492298 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
    0.09176904 = weight(_text_:united in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09176904 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
    0.12416841 = sum of:
      0.088412896 = weight(_text_:states in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.088412896 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043984205 = queryNorm
          0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
      0.035755515 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035755515 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043984205 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

The age distribution of a country's scientists is an important element in the study of its research capacity. In this article we investigate the age distribution of Japanese scientists in order to find out whether major events such as World War II had an appreciable effect on its features. Data have been obtained from population censuses taken in Japan from 1970 to 1995. A comparison with the situation in China and the United States has been made. We find that the group of scientific researchers outside academia is dominated by the young: those younger than age 35. The personnel group in higher education, on the other hand, is dominated by the baby boomers: those who were born after World War II. Contrary to the Chinese situation we could not find any influence of major nondemographic events. The only influence we found was the increase in enrollment of university students after World War II caused by the reform of the Japanese university system. Female participation in the scientific and university systems in Japan, though still low, is increasing.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:26:24

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.342-346

0.112121426 = product of:
  0.22424285 = sum of:
    0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 1203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007487943 = score(doc=1203,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1203, 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=1203)
    0.1529484 = weight(_text_:united in 1203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1529484 = score(doc=1203,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.61983573 = fieldWeight in 1203, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1203)
    0.06380652 = product of:
      0.12761304 = sum of:
        0.12761304 = weight(_text_:states in 1203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12761304 = score(doc=1203,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.5268864 = fieldWeight in 1203, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1203)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Some 1,857 highly cited reviews, namely those cited at least 1,000 times since publication to 2011, were identified using the data hosted on the Science Citation Index ExpandedT database (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY) between 1899 and 2011. The data are disaggregated by publication date, citation counts, journals, Web of Science® (Thomson Reuters) subject areas, citation life cycles, and publications by Nobel Prize winners. Six indicators, total publications, independent publications, collaborative publications, first-author publications, corresponding-author publications, and single-author publications were applied to evaluate publication of institutions and countries. Among the highly cited reviews, 33% were single-author, 61% were single-institution, and 83% were single-country reviews. The United States ranked top for all 6 indicators. The G7 (United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, France, Japan, and Italy) countries were the site of almost all the highly cited reviews. The top 12 most productive institutions were all located in the United States with Harvard University (Cambridge, MA) the leader. The top 3 most productive journals were Chemical Reviews, Nature, and the Annual Review of Biochemistry. In addition, the impact of the reviews was analyzed by total citations from publication to 2011, citations in 2011, and citation in publication year.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.372-385

0.10951855 = product of:
  0.32855564 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=274,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 274, 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=274)
    0.31957012 = weight(_text_:networks in 274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.31957012 = score(doc=274,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        1.5360864 = fieldWeight in 274, product of:
          6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
            48.0 = termFreq=48.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=274)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This study explores the similarity among six types of scholarly networks aggregated at the institution level, including bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks. Cosine distance is chosen to measure the similarities among the six networks. The authors found that topical networks and coauthorship networks have the lowest similarity; cocitation networks and citation networks have high similarity; bibliographic coupling networks and cocitation networks have high similarity; and coword networks and topical networks have high similarity. In addition, through multidimensional scaling, two dimensions can be identified among the six networks: Dimension 1 can be interpreted as citation-based versus noncitation-based, and Dimension 2 can be interpreted as social versus cognitive. The authors recommend the use of hybrid or heterogeneous networks to study research interaction and scholarly communications.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1313-1326

0.101875834 = product of:
  0.20375167 = sum of:
    0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007487943 = score(doc=617,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 617, 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=617)
    0.13245721 = weight(_text_:united in 617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13245721 = score(doc=617,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.53679353 = fieldWeight in 617, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=617)
    0.06380652 = product of:
      0.12761304 = sum of:
        0.12761304 = weight(_text_:states in 617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12761304 = score(doc=617,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.5268864 = fieldWeight in 617, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=617)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

This study undertook an exploratory analysis of the relationship between the body of scientific literature associated with HIV/AIDS and the trajectory of the epidemic, measured by the rate of new cases diagnosed annually in the United States for the period covering 1981 to 2009. The body of scientific literature examined in this investigation was constituted from scientific research that developed alongside the epidemic and was extracted from MEDLINE, a bibliographic database of the United States. National Library of Medicine. Content analysis methods were employed for qualitative data reduction, and regression analysis was used to assess whether variation in the trajectory of the epidemic co-occurred with variation in the publication of specific genres of content within the scientific literature relating to HIV/AIDS. The regression model confirmed a statistically significant association between the representative body of HIV/AIDS scientific literature and the epidemic trajectory, and identified three research categories, namely, ameliorative drug treatments, other clinical protocols, and health education, as being most significantly associated with the epidemic trajectory. Implicit in the findings of this study are areas of scientific research that are of functional and practical interest to clinicians, policy makers, the lay public, and contributors to the body of scientific literature.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.380-391

0.09332418 = product of:
  0.18664835 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2586, 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=2586)
    0.15978506 = weight(_text_:networks in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15978506 = score(doc=2586,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.7680432 = fieldWeight in 2586, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2586)
    0.017877758 = product of:
      0.035755515 = sum of:
        0.035755515 = weight(_text_:22 in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035755515 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

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

0.084560595 = product of:
  0.16912119 = sum of:
    0.010483121 = weight(_text_:information in 2860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010483121 = score(doc=2860,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2860, 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=2860)
    0.10706388 = weight(_text_:united in 2860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10706388 = score(doc=2860,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.433885 = fieldWeight in 2860, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2860)
    0.05157419 = product of:
      0.10314838 = sum of:
        0.10314838 = weight(_text_:states in 2860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10314838 = score(doc=2860,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.42587718 = fieldWeight in 2860, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2860)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Generally, multicountry papers receive more citations than single-country ones. In this contribution, we examine if this rule also applies to American scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary journals. Concretely, we compare the citations received by American scientists in Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). It is shown that, statistically, American scientists publishing in Nature and Science do not benefit from international collaboration. This statement also holds for communicated submissions, but not for direct and for contributed submissions, to PNAS.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.1009-1013

0.0838683 = product of:
  0.1677366 = sum of:
    0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 2780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007487943 = score(doc=2780,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2780, 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=2780)
    0.108150855 = weight(_text_:united in 2780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108150855 = score(doc=2780,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.43829006 = fieldWeight in 2780, 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=2780)
    0.0520978 = product of:
      0.1041956 = sum of:
        0.1041956 = weight(_text_:states in 2780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1041956 = score(doc=2780,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.43020093 = fieldWeight in 2780, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Scientific progress is driven by important, infrequent discoveries that cannot be readily identified and quantified, which makes research assessment very difficult. Bibliometric indicators of important discoveries have been formulated using an empirical approach, based on the mathematical properties of the high-citation tail of the citation distribution. To investigate the theoretical basis of such formulations this study compares the US/European research performance ratios expressed in terms of highly cited papers and Nobel Prize-winning discoveries. The research performance ratio in terms of papers was studied from the citation distributions in the fields of chemistry, physics, and biochemistry and molecular biology. It varied as a function of the citation level. Selecting an appropriate high citation level, the ratios in terms of highly cited papers were compared with the corresponding ratios for Nobel Prize-winning discoveries in Chemistry, Physics, and Physiology or Medicine. Research performance ratios expressed in terms of highly cited papers and Nobel Prize-winning discoveries are reasonably similar, and suggest that the research success of the United States is almost 3 times that of Europe. A similar conclusion was obtained using articles published in Nature and Science.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.731-740

0.08374936 = product of:
  0.16749872 = sum of:
    0.014825371 = weight(_text_:information in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014825371 = score(doc=4188,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 4188, 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=4188)
    0.13181597 = weight(_text_:networks in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13181597 = score(doc=4188,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.6336034 = fieldWeight in 4188, 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=4188)
    0.020857384 = product of:
      0.04171477 = sum of:
        0.04171477 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04171477 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

This article aims to identify whether different weighted PageRank algorithms can be applied to author citation networks to measure the popularity and prestige of a scholar from a citation perspective. Information retrieval (IR) was selected as a test field and data from 1956-2008 were collected from Web of Science. Weighted PageRank with citation and publication as weighted vectors were calculated on author citation networks. The results indicate that both popularity rank and prestige rank were highly correlated with the weighted PageRank. Principal component analysis was conducted to detect relationships among these different measures. For capturing prize winners within the IR field, prestige rank outperformed all the other measures

Date

22. 1.2011 13:02:21

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.236-245

0.078663625 = product of:
  0.15732725 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
    0.13046396 = weight(_text_:networks in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13046396 = score(doc=918,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.6271047 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.017877758 = product of:
      0.035755515 = sum of:
        0.035755515 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035755515 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:14

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.415-433

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

0.074341476 = product of:
  0.14868295 = sum of:
    0.012707461 = weight(_text_:information in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012707461 = score(doc=1110,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1110, 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=1110)
    0.09176904 = weight(_text_:united in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09176904 = score(doc=1110,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 1110, 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=1110)
    0.044206448 = product of:
      0.088412896 = sum of:
        0.088412896 = weight(_text_:states in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.088412896 = score(doc=1110,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 1110, 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=1110)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Using data from the Web of Science (WoS), we analyze the mutual information among university, industry, and government addresses (U-I-G) at the country level for a number of countries. The dynamic evolution of the Triple Helix can thus be compared among developed and developing nations in terms of cross-sectional coauthorship relations. The results show that the Triple Helix interactions among the three subsystems U-I-G become less intensive over time, but unequally for different countries. We suggest that globalization erodes local Triple Helix relations and thus can be expected to have increased differentiation in national systems since the mid-1990s. This effect of globalization is more pronounced in developed countries than in developing ones. In the dynamic analysis, we focus on a more detailed comparison between China and the United States. Specifically, the Chinese Academy of the (Social) Sciences is changing increasingly from a public research institute to an academic one, and this has a measurable effect on China's position in the globalization.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.11, S.2317-2325

0.072480515 = product of:
  0.14496103 = sum of:
    0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089855315 = score(doc=618,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 618, 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=618)
    0.09176904 = weight(_text_:united in 618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09176904 = score(doc=618,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 618, 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=618)
    0.044206448 = product of:
      0.088412896 = sum of:
        0.088412896 = weight(_text_:states in 618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.088412896 = score(doc=618,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 618, 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=618)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

We analyze the benefits in terms of scientific impact deriving from international collaboration, examining both those for a country when it collaborates and also those for the other countries when they are collaborating with the former. The data show the more countries there are involved in the collaboration, the greater the gain in impact. Contrary to what we expected, the scientific impact of a country does not significantly influence the benefit it derives from collaboration, but does seem to positively influence the benefit obtained by the other countries collaborating with it. Although there was a weak correlation between these two classes of benefit, the countries with the highest impact were clear outliers from this correlation, tending to provide proportionally more benefit to their collaborating countries than they themselves obtained. Two surprising findings were the null benefit resulting from collaboration with Iran, and the small benefit resulting from collaboration with the United States despite its high impact.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.392-404

0.061951227 = product of:
  0.123902455 = sum of:
    0.01058955 = weight(_text_:information in 3758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01058955 = score(doc=3758,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3758, 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=3758)
    0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 3758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0764742 = score(doc=3758,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 3758, 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=3758)
    0.03683871 = product of:
      0.07367742 = sum of:
        0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 3758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07367742 = score(doc=3758,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 3758, 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=3758)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

Whereas traditional science maps emphasize citation statistics and static relationships, this paper presents a term-based method to identify and visualize the evolutionary pathways of scientific topics in a series of time slices. First, we create a data preprocessing model for accurate term cleaning, consolidating, and clustering. Then we construct a simulated data streaming function and introduce a learning process to train a relationship identification function to adapt to changing environments in real time, where relationships of topic evolution, fusion, death, and novelty are identified. The main result of the method is a map of scientific evolutionary pathways. The visual routines provide a way to indicate the interactions among scientific subjects and a version in a series of time slices helps further illustrate such evolutionary pathways in detail. The detailed outline offers sufficient statistical information to delve into scientific topics and routines and then helps address meaningful insights with the assistance of expert knowledge. This empirical study focuses on scientific proposals granted by the United States National Science Foundation, and demonstrates the feasibility and reliability. Our method could be widely applied to a range of science, technology, and innovation policy research, and offer insight into the evolutionary pathways of scientific activities.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.8, S.1925-1939

0.061765026 = product of:
  0.18529508 = sum of:
    0.012707461 = weight(_text_:information in 1256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012707461 = score(doc=1256,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1256, 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=1256)
    0.17258762 = weight(_text_:networks in 1256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17258762 = score(doc=1256,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.8295816 = fieldWeight in 1256, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1256)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Most measures of networks are based on the nodes, although links are also elementary units in networks and represent interesting social or physical connections. In this work we suggest an option for exploring networks, called the h-strength, with explicit focus on links and their strengths. The h-strength and its extensions can naturally simplify a complex network to a small and concise subnetwork (h-subnet) but retains the most important links with its core structure. Its applications in 2 typical information networks, the paper cocitation network of a topic (the h-index) and 5 scientific collaboration networks in the field of "water resources," suggest that h-strength and its extensions could be a useful choice for abstracting, simplifying, and visualizing a complex network. Moreover, we observe that the 2 informetric models, the Glänzel-Schubert model and the Hirsch model, roughly hold in the context of the h-strength for the collaboration networks.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.984-994

0.061177127 = product of:
  0.122354254 = sum of:
    0.012707461 = weight(_text_:information in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012707461 = score(doc=2856,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
    0.09176904 = weight(_text_:united in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09176904 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
    0.017877758 = product of:
      0.035755515 = sum of:
        0.035755515 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035755515 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

This article introduces a new source of evidence of the value of medical-related research: citations from clinical guidelines. These give evidence that research findings have been used to inform the day-to-day practice of medical staff. To identify whether citations from guidelines can give different information from that of traditional citation counts, this article assesses the extent to which references in clinical guidelines tend to be highly cited in the academic literature and highly read in Mendeley. Using evidence from the United Kingdom, references associated with the UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines tended to be substantially more cited than comparable articles, unless they had been published in the most recent 3 years. Citation counts also seemed to be stronger indicators than Mendeley readership altmetrics. Hence, although presence in guidelines may be particularly useful to highlight the contributions of recently published articles, for older articles citation counts may already be sufficient to recognize their contributions to health in society.

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.960-966