Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.033326045 = product of:
  0.06665209 = sum of:
    0.06665209 = sum of:
      0.024085289 = weight(_text_:science in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024085289 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 654, 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=654)
      0.042566802 = weight(_text_:22 in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042566802 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 654, 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=654)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2013 16:21:09

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.3, S.437-447

0.014049753 = product of:
  0.028099505 = sum of:
    0.028099505 = product of:
      0.05619901 = sum of:
        0.05619901 = weight(_text_:science in 1821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05619901 = score(doc=1821,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 1821, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1821)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Applying a recently developed method for measuring the level of specialization over time for a selection of library and information science (LIS)-core journals seems to reveal that Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) is slowly transforming into a specialty journal. The transformation seems to originate from a growing interest in bibliometric topics. This is evident from a longitudinal study (1990-2012) of the bibliometric coupling strength between Scientometrics and other LIS-core journals (including JASIST). The cause of this gradual transformation is discussed, and possible explanations are analyzed.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.5, S.1082-1085

0.008515436 = product of:
  0.017030872 = sum of:
    0.017030872 = product of:
      0.034061745 = sum of:
        0.034061745 = weight(_text_:science in 4210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034061745 = score(doc=4210,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4210, 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=4210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The greatest number of open access journals (OAJs) is found in the sciences and their influence is growing. However, there are only a few studies on the acceptance and thereby integration of these OAJs in the scholarly communication system. Even fewer studies provide insight into the differences across disciplines. This study is an analysis of the citing behaviour in journals within three science fields: biology, mathematics, and pharmacy and pharmacology. It is a statistical analysis of OAJs as well as non-OAJs including both the citing and cited side of the journal to journal citations. The multivariate linear regression reveals many similarities in citing behaviour across fields and media. But it also points to great differences in the integration of OAJs. The integration of OAJs in the scholarly communication system varies considerably across fields. The implications for bibliometric research are discussed.

0.008515436 = product of:
  0.017030872 = sum of:
    0.017030872 = product of:
      0.034061745 = sum of:
        0.034061745 = weight(_text_:science in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034061745 = score(doc=4361,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4361, 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=4361)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Flattery citations of editors, potential referees, and so on have been claimed to be a common strategy among academic authors. From a sociology of science perspective as well as from a citation analytical perspective, it is both an interesting claim and a consequential one. The article presents a citation analysis of the editorial board members entering the American Economic Review from 1984 to 2004 using a citation window of 11 years. To test the flattery citation hypothesis further, we have conducted a study applying the difference-in-differences estimator. We analyze the number of times the editors and editorial board members of the American Economic Review were cited in articles published in the journal itself as well as in a pool of documents comprising articles from the Journal of Political Economy and the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The results of the analyses do not support the existence of a flattery citation effect.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.5, S.807-818

0.0070961965 = product of:
  0.014192393 = sum of:
    0.014192393 = product of:
      0.028384786 = sum of:
        0.028384786 = weight(_text_:science in 5587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028384786 = score(doc=5587,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 5587, 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=5587)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to clarify earlier work on journal diffusion metrics. Classical journal indicators such as the Garfield impact factor do not measure the breadth of influence across the literature of a particular journal title. As a new approach to measuring research influence, the study complements these existing metrics with a series of formally described diffusion factors. Design/methodology/approach - Using a publication-citation matrix as an organising construct, the paper develops formal descriptions of two forms of diffusion metric: "relative diffusion factors" and "journal diffusion factors" in both their synchronous and diachronous forms. It also provides worked examples for selected library and information science and economics journals, plus a sample of health information papers to illustrate their construction and use. Findings - Diffusion factors capture different aspects of the citation reception process than existing bibliometric measures. The paper shows that diffusion factors can be applied at the whole journal level or for sets of articles and that they provide a richer evidence base for citation analyses than traditional measures alone. Research limitations/implications - The focus of this paper is on clarifying the concepts underlying diffusion factors and there is unlimited scope for further work to apply these metrics to much larger and more comprehensive data sets than has been attempted here. Practical implications - These new tools extend the range of tools available for bibliometric, and possibly webometric, analysis. Diffusion factors might find particular application in studies where the research questions focus on the dynamic aspects of innovation and knowledge transfer. Originality/value - This paper will be of interest to those with theoretical interests in informetric distributions as well as those interested in science policy and innovation studies.

0.0070248763 = product of:
  0.014049753 = sum of:
    0.014049753 = product of:
      0.028099505 = sum of:
        0.028099505 = weight(_text_:science in 4391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028099505 = score(doc=4391,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 4391, 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=4391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.10, S.1570-1581

0.0070248763 = product of:
  0.014049753 = sum of:
    0.014049753 = product of:
      0.028099505 = sum of:
        0.028099505 = weight(_text_:science in 4962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028099505 = score(doc=4962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 4962, 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=4962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.64-71

0.006021322 = product of:
  0.012042644 = sum of:
    0.012042644 = product of:
      0.024085289 = sum of:
        0.024085289 = weight(_text_:science in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024085289 = score(doc=3264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3264, 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=3264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.1, S.58-62

0.006021322 = product of:
  0.012042644 = sum of:
    0.012042644 = product of:
      0.024085289 = sum of:
        0.024085289 = weight(_text_:science in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024085289 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3601, 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=3601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.5, S.1278-1284