Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013275769 = product of:
  0.026551537 = sum of:
    0.026551537 = product of:
      0.053103074 = sum of:
        0.053103074 = weight(_text_:science in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053103074 = score(doc=663,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.38499892 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Power dynamics influence every aspect of scientific collaboration. Team power dynamics can be measured by team power level and team power hierarchy. Team power level is conceptualized as the average level of the possession of resources, expertise, or decision-making authorities of a team. Team power hierarchy represents the vertical differences of the possessions of resources in a team. In Science of Science, few studies have looked at scientific collaboration from the perspective of team power dynamics. This research examines how team power dynamics affect team impact to fill the research gap. In this research, all coauthors of one publication are treated as one team. Team power level and team power hierarchy of one team are measured by the mean and Gini index of career age of coauthors in this team. Team impact is quantified by citations of a paper authored by this team. By analyzing over 7.7 million teams from Science (e.g., Computer Science, Physics), Social Sciences (e.g., Sociology, Library & Information Science), and Arts & Humanities (e.g., Art), we find that flat team structure is associated with higher team impact, especially when teams have high team power level. These findings have been repeated in all five disciplines except Art, and are consistent in various types of teams from Computer Science including teams from industry or academia, teams with different gender groups, teams with geographical contrast, and teams with distinct size.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.10, S.1489-1505

0.010429238 = product of:
  0.020858476 = sum of:
    0.020858476 = product of:
      0.041716952 = sum of:
        0.041716952 = weight(_text_:science in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041716952 = score(doc=1202,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Collaboration across disciplines is a critical form of scientific collaboration to solve complex problems and make innovative contributions. This study focuses on the association between multidisciplinary collaboration measured by coauthorship in publications and the disruption of publications measured by the Disruption (D) index. We used authors' affiliations as a proxy of the disciplines to which they belong and categorized an article into multidisciplinary collaboration or monodisciplinary collaboration. The D index quantifies the extent to which a study disrupts its predecessors. We selected 13 journals that publish articles in six disciplines from the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) database and then constructed regression models with fixed effects and estimated the relationship between the variables. The findings show that articles with monodisciplinary collaboration are more disruptive than those with multidisciplinary collaboration. Furthermore, we uncovered the mechanism of how monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration by exploring the references of the sampled publications.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 75(2023) no.1, S.59-78

0.008515436 = product of:
  0.017030872 = sum of:
    0.017030872 = product of:
      0.034061745 = sum of:
        0.034061745 = weight(_text_:science in 5387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034061745 = score(doc=5387,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 5387, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article investigates the lengths of time that publications with different numbers of citations take to receive their first citation (the beginning stage), and then compares the lengths of time to receive two or more citations after receiving the first citation (the accumulative stage) in the field of computer science. We find that in the beginning stage, that is, from zero to one citation, high-, medium-, and low-cited publications do not obviously exhibit different lengths of time. However, in the accumulative stage, that is, from one to N citations, highly cited publications begin to receive citations much more rapidly than medium- and low-cited publications. Moreover, as N increases, the difference in receiving new citations among high-, medium-, and low-cited publications increases quite significantly.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.10, S.1098-1107

0.0070961965 = product of:
  0.014192393 = sum of:
    0.014192393 = product of:
      0.028384786 = sum of:
        0.028384786 = weight(_text_:science in 4012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028384786 = score(doc=4012,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4012, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4012)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scientific collaboration is vital to many fields, and it is common to see scholars seek out experienced researchers or experts in a domain with whom they can share knowledge, experience, and resources. To explore the diversity of research collaborations, this article performs a temporal analysis on the scientific careers of researchers in the field of computer science. Specifically, we analyze collaborators using 2 indicators: the research topic diversity, measured by the Author-Conference-Topic model and cosine, and the impact diversity, measured by the normalized standard deviation of h-indices. We find that the collaborators of high-impact researchers tend to study diverse research topics and have diverse h-indices. Moreover, by setting PhD graduation as an important milestone in researchers' careers, we examine several indicators related to scientific collaboration and their effects on a career. The results show that collaborating with authoritative authors plays an important role prior to a researcher's PhD graduation, but working with non-authoritative authors carries more weight after PhD graduation.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.87-97

0.0070961965 = product of:
  0.014192393 = sum of:
    0.014192393 = product of:
      0.028384786 = sum of:
        0.028384786 = weight(_text_:science in 4176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028384786 = score(doc=4176,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4176, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Common sense suggests that persistence is key to success. In academia, successful researchers have been found more likely to be persistent in publishing, but little attention has been given to how persistence in maintaining collaborative relationships affects career success. This paper proposes a new bibliometric understanding of persistence that considers the prominent role of collaboration in contemporary science. Using this perspective, we analyze the relationship between persistent collaboration and publication quality along several dimensions: degree of transdisciplinarity, difference in coauthor's scientific age and their scientific impact, and research-team size. Contrary to traditional wisdom, our results show that persistent scientific collaboration does not always result in high-quality papers. We find that the most persistent transdisciplinary collaboration tends to output high-impact publications, and that those coauthors with diverse scientific impact or scientific ages benefit from persistent collaboration more than homogeneous compositions. We also find that researchers persistently working in large groups tend to publish lower-impact papers. These results contradict the colloquial understanding of collaboration in academia and paint a more nuanced picture of how persistent scientific collaboration relates to success, a picture that can provide valuable insights to researchers, funding agencies, policy makers, and mentor-mentee program directors. Moreover, the methodology in this study showcases a feasible approach to measure persistent collaboration.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.3, S.438-448

0.0070961965 = product of:
  0.014192393 = sum of:
    0.014192393 = product of:
      0.028384786 = sum of:
        0.028384786 = weight(_text_:science in 62) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028384786 = score(doc=62,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 62, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=62)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Citation analysis, as a tool for quantitative studies of science, has long emphasized direct citation relations, leaving indirect or high-order citations overlooked. However, a series of early and recent studies demonstrate the existence of indirect and continuous citation impact across generations. Adding to the literature on high-order citations, we introduce the concept of a citation cascade: the constitution of a series of subsequent citing events initiated by a certain publication. We investigate this citation structure by analyzing more than 450,000 articles and over 6 million citation relations. We show that citation impact exists not only within the three generations documented in prior research but also in much further generations. Still, our experimental results indicate that two to four generations are generally adequate to trace a work's scientific impact. We also explore specific structural properties-such as depth, width, structural virality, and size-which account for differences among individual citation cascades. Finally, we find evidence that it is more important for a scientific work to inspire trans-domain (or indirectly related domain) works than to receive only intradomain recognition in order to achieve high impact. Our methods and findings can serve as a new tool for scientific evaluation and the modeling of scientific history.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.1, S.110-127

0.0070248763 = product of:
  0.014049753 = sum of:
    0.014049753 = product of:
      0.028099505 = sum of:
        0.028099505 = weight(_text_:science in 209) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028099505 = score(doc=209,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 209, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=209)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.5, S.523-539

0.006021322 = product of:
  0.012042644 = sum of:
    0.012042644 = product of:
      0.024085289 = sum of:
        0.024085289 = weight(_text_:science in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024085289 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.72-86

0.006021322 = product of:
  0.012042644 = sum of:
    0.012042644 = product of:
      0.024085289 = sum of:
        0.024085289 = weight(_text_:science in 5219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024085289 = score(doc=5219,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 5219, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.5, S.462-475

0.0050177686 = product of:
  0.010035537 = sum of:
    0.010035537 = product of:
      0.020071074 = sum of:
        0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 4445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020071074 = score(doc=4445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4445, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4445)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.10, S.1271-1282

0.0050177686 = product of:
  0.010035537 = sum of:
    0.010035537 = product of:
      0.020071074 = sum of:
        0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020071074 = score(doc=621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.7, S.1025-1042

0.0050177686 = product of:
  0.010035537 = sum of:
    0.010035537 = product of:
      0.020071074 = sum of:
        0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020071074 = score(doc=633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 633, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.8, S.1065-1078