Search (535 results, page 1 of 27)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Schwens, U.: Feasibility of exploiting bibliometric data in European national bibliographic databases (1999) 0.07 
    0.07369025 = product of:
  0.18422562 = sum of:
    0.14938271 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14938271 = score(doc=3792,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.8516034 = fieldWeight in 3792, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3792)
    0.0348429 = product of:
      0.0696858 = sum of:
        0.0696858 = weight(_text_:data in 3792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0696858 = score(doc=3792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.48910472 = fieldWeight in 3792, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3792)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 28(1999) no.3, S.76-77
  2. Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013) 0.06 
    0.057251465 = product of:
  0.28625733 = sum of:
    0.28625733 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28625733 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38200375 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Content
    Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
  3. Zhu, Y.; Quan, L.; Chen, P.-Y.; Kim, M.C.; Che, C.: Predicting coauthorship using bibliographic network embedding (2023) 0.05 
    0.05263589 = product of:
  0.13158973 = sum of:
    0.10670193 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10670193 = score(doc=917,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.6082881 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
    0.024887787 = product of:
      0.049775574 = sum of:
        0.049775574 = weight(_text_:data in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049775574 = score(doc=917,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.34936053 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Coauthorship prediction applies predictive analytics to bibliographic data to predict authors who are highly likely to be coauthors. In this study, we propose an approach for coauthorship prediction based on bibliographic network embedding through a graph-based bibliographic data model that can be used to model common bibliographic data, including papers, terms, sources, authors, departments, research interests, universities, and countries. A real-world dataset released by AMiner that includes more than 2 million papers, 8 million citations, and 1.7 million authors were integrated into a large bibliographic network using the proposed bibliographic data model. Translation-based methods were applied to the entities and relationships to generate their low-dimensional embeddings while preserving their connectivity information in the original bibliographic network. We applied machine learning algorithms to embeddings that represent the coauthorship relationships of the two authors and achieved high prediction results. The reference model, which is the combination of a network embedding size of 100, the most basic translation-based method, and a gradient boosting method achieved an F1 score of 0.9 and even higher scores are obtainable with different embedding sizes and more advanced embedding methods. Thus, the strengths of the proposed approach lie in its customizable components under a unified framework.
  4. Lardy, J.P.; Herzhaft, L.: Bibliometric treatments according to bibliographic errors and data heterogenity : the end-user point of view (1992) 0.04 
    0.04194648 = product of:
  0.10486619 = sum of:
    0.074691355 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074691355 = score(doc=5064,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 5064, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5064)
    0.03017484 = product of:
      0.06034968 = sum of:
        0.06034968 = weight(_text_:data in 5064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06034968 = score(doc=5064,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.42357713 = fieldWeight in 5064, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The quality of online and CD-ROM databases is far from satisfactory. Errors are frequently found in listings from online searches. Spelling mistakes are the most common but there are also more misleading errors such as variations of an author's name or absence of homogenity in the content of certain field. Describes breifly a bibliometric study of large amounts of data downloaded from databases to investigate bibliographic errors and data heterogeneity. Recommends that database producers should consider either the implementation of a common format or the recommendations of the Société Française de Bibliométrie
  5. Fiala, D.: Bibliometric analysis of CiteSeer data for countries (2012) 0.04 
    0.040239435 = product of:
  0.10059859 = sum of:
    0.06402116 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06402116 = score(doc=2742,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
    0.03657743 = product of:
      0.07315486 = sum of:
        0.07315486 = weight(_text_:data in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07315486 = score(doc=2742,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.513453 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article describes the results of our analysis of the data from the CiteSeer digital library. First, we examined the data from the point of view of source top-level Internet domains from which the data were collected. Second, we measured country shares in publications indexed by CiteSeer and compared them to those based on mainstream bibliographic data from the Web of Science and Scopus. And third, we concentrated on analyzing publications and their citations aggregated by countries. This way, we generated rankings of the most influential countries in computer science using several non-recursive as well as recursive methods such as citation counts or PageRank. We conclude that even if East Asian countries are underrepresented in CiteSeer, its data may well be used along with other conventional bibliographic databases for comparing the computer science research productivity and performance of countries.
  6. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.04 
    0.039647814 = product of:
  0.09911954 = sum of:
    0.030179864 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030179864 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.06893967 = sum of:
      0.044520628 = weight(_text_:data in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044520628 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.31247756 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.024419045 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024419045 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
  7. Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A.: Mapping knowledge domains on Wikipedia : an author bibliographic coupling analysis of traditional Chinese medicine (2022) 0.04 
    0.038836475 = product of:
  0.09709118 = sum of:
    0.079848416 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079848416 = score(doc=608,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.45520115 = fieldWeight in 608, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=608)
    0.017242765 = product of:
      0.03448553 = sum of:
        0.03448553 = weight(_text_:data in 608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03448553 = score(doc=608,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.24204408 = fieldWeight in 608, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose Wikipedia has the lofty goal of compiling all human knowledge. The purpose of the present study is to map the structure of the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) knowledge domain on Wikipedia, to identify patterns of knowledge representation on Wikipedia and to test the applicability of author bibliographic coupling analysis, an effective method for mapping knowledge domains represented in published scholarly documents, for Wikipedia data. Design/methodology/approach We adapted and followed the well-established procedures and techniques for author bibliographic coupling analysis (ABCA). Instead of bibliographic data from a citation database, we used all articles on TCM downloaded from the English version of Wikipedia as our dataset. An author bibliographic coupling network was calculated and then factor analyzed using SPSS. Factor analysis results were visualized. Factors were labeled upon manual examination of articles that authors who load primarily in each factor have significantly contributed references to. Clear factors were interpreted as topics. Findings Seven TCM topic areas are represented on Wikipedia, among which Acupuncture-related practices, Falun Gong and Herbal Medicine attracted the most significant contributors to TCM. Acupuncture and Qi Gong have the most connections to the TCM knowledge domain and also serve as bridges for other topics to connect to the domain. Herbal medicine is weakly linked to and non-herbal medicine is isolated from the rest of the TCM knowledge domain. It appears that specific topics are represented well on Wikipedia but their conceptual connections are not. ABCA is effective for mapping knowledge domains on Wikipedia but document-based bibliographic coupling analysis is not. Originality/value Given the prominent position of Wikipedia for both information users and for researchers on knowledge organization and information retrieval, it is important to study how well knowledge is represented and structured on Wikipedia. Such studies appear largely missing although studies from different perspectives both about Wikipedia and using Wikipedia as data are abundant. Author bibliographic coupling analysis is effective for mapping knowledge domains represented in published scholarly documents but has never been applied to mapping knowledge domains represented on Wikipedia.
  8. Ni, C.; Shaw, D.; Lind, S.M.; Ding, Y.: Journal impact and proximity : an assessment using bibliographic features (2013) 0.04 
    0.037336905 = product of:
  0.09334226 = sum of:
    0.07840959 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07840959 = score(doc=686,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
    0.014932672 = product of:
      0.029865343 = sum of:
        0.029865343 = weight(_text_:data in 686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029865343 = score(doc=686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Journals in the Information Science & Library Science category of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were compared using both bibliometric and bibliographic features. Data collected covered journal impact factor (JIF), number of issues per year, number of authors per article, longevity, editorial board membership, frequency of publication, number of databases indexing the journal, number of aggregators providing full-text access, country of publication, JCR categories, Dewey decimal classification, and journal statement of scope. Three features significantly correlated with JIF: number of editorial board members and number of JCR categories in which a journal is listed correlated positively; journal longevity correlated negatively with JIF. Coword analysis of journal descriptions provided a proximity clustering of journals, which differed considerably from the clusters based on editorial board membership. Finally, a multiple linear regression model was built to predict the JIF based on all the collected bibliographic features.
  9. Park, H.; You, S.; Wolfram, D.: Informal data citation for data sharing and reuse is more common than formal data citation in biomedical fields (2018) 0.04 
    0.03620792 = product of:
  0.0905198 = sum of:
    0.03772483 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03772483 = score(doc=4544,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 4544, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4544)
    0.052794974 = product of:
      0.10558995 = sum of:
        0.10558995 = weight(_text_:data in 4544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10558995 = score(doc=4544,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.7411056 = fieldWeight in 4544, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4544)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Data citation, where products of research such as data sets, software, and tissue cultures are shared and acknowledged, is becoming more common in the era of Open Science. Currently, the practice of formal data citation-where data references are included alongside bibliographic references in the reference section of a publication-is uncommon. We examine the prevalence of data citation, documenting data sharing and reuse, in a sample of full text articles from the biological/biomedical sciences, the fields with the most public data sets available documented by the Data Citation Index (DCI). We develop a method that combines automated text extraction with human assessment for revealing candidate occurrences of data sharing and reuse by using terms that are most likely to indicate their occurrence. The analysis reveals that informal data citation in the main text of articles is far more common than formal data citations in the references of articles. As a result, data sharers do not receive documented credit for their data contributions in a similar way as authors do for their research articles because informal data citations are not recorded in sources such as the DCI. Ongoing challenges for the study of data citation are also outlined.
  10. Ossenblok, T.L.B.; Verleysen, F.T.; Engels, T.C.E.: Coauthorship of journal articles and book chapters in the social sciences and humanities (2000-2010) (2014) 0.03 
    0.03405566 = product of:
  0.085139155 = sum of:
    0.06402116 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06402116 = score(doc=1249,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
    0.021117989 = product of:
      0.042235978 = sum of:
        0.042235978 = weight(_text_:data in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042235978 = score(doc=1249,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This study analyzes coauthorship patterns in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) for the period 2000 to 2010. The basis for the analysis is the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities (VABB-SHW), a comprehensive bibliographic database of peer-reviewed publications in the SSH by researchers affiliated with Flemish universities. Combining data on journal articles and book chapters, our findings indicate that collaborative publishing in the SSH is increasing, though considerable differences between disciplines remain. Conversely, we did observe a sharp decline in single-author publishing. We further demonstrate that coauthored SSH articles in journals indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) generally have a higher (and growing) number of coauthors than do either those in non-WoS journals or book chapters. This illustrates the need to include non-WoS data and book chapters when studying coauthorship in the SSH.
  11. Tijssen, R.J.W.; Wijk, E. van: ¬The global science base of information and communication technologies : bibliometric analysis of ICT research papers (1998) 0.03 
    0.033911508 = product of:
  0.08477877 = sum of:
    0.060359728 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060359728 = score(doc=3691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 3691, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3691)
    0.024419045 = product of:
      0.04883809 = sum of:
        0.04883809 = weight(_text_:22 in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04883809 = score(doc=3691,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3691, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    International bibliographic databases and related biblimetric indicators together provide an analytical framework and appropriate measure to cover both the 'supply side' - research capabilities and outputs - and 'demand side' - collaboration, diffusion and citation impact - related to information and communication technologies (ICT) research. Presents results of such a bibliometric study describing macro level features of this ICT knowledge base
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:26:54
  12. Kaminer, N.; Braunstein, Y.M.: Bibliometric analysis of the impact of Internet use on scholarly productivity (1998) 0.03 
    0.032107983 = product of:
  0.080269955 = sum of:
    0.060359728 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060359728 = score(doc=1151,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 1151, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1151)
    0.01991023 = product of:
      0.03982046 = sum of:
        0.03982046 = weight(_text_:data in 1151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03982046 = score(doc=1151,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 1151, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1151)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Variables measuring the nature and level of Internet usage by natural scientists improve the explanatory power of a traditional bibliographic model of scholarly productivity. The data used to construct these variables come from log files generated by the internal accounting modules of the UNIX operating system. The effects of Internet usage on productivity are quntifiable, and it is possible to calculate tradeoffs between Internet usage and the more traditional inputs
  13. Leeuwen, T.N. van; Tatum, C.; Wouters, P.F: Exploring possibilities to use bibliometric data to monitor gold open access publishing at the national level (2018) 0.03 
    0.030054057 = product of:
  0.07513514 = sum of:
    0.045269795 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045269795 = score(doc=4458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 4458, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4458)
    0.029865343 = product of:
      0.059730686 = sum of:
        0.059730686 = weight(_text_:data in 4458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059730686 = score(doc=4458,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.4192326 = fieldWeight in 4458, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4458)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article1 describes the possibilities to analyze open access (OA) publishing in the Netherlands in an international comparative way. OA publishing is now actively stimulated by Dutch science policy, similar to the United Kingdom. We conducted a bibliometric baseline measurement to assess the current situation, to be able to measure developments over time. We collected data from various sources, and for three different smaller European countries (the Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland). Not all of the analyses for this baseline measurement are included here. The analysis presented in this article focuses on the various ways OA can be defined using the Web of Science, limiting the analysis mainly to Gold OA. From the data we collected we can conclude that the way OA is currently registered in various electronic bibliographic databases is quite unclear, and various methods applied deliver results that are different, although the impact scores derived from the data point in the same direction.
  14. Hood, W.W.; Wilson, C.S.: Overlap in bibliographic databases (2003) 0.03 
    0.028379714 = product of:
  0.070949286 = sum of:
    0.053350966 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053350966 = score(doc=1868,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
    0.017598324 = product of:
      0.035196647 = sum of:
        0.035196647 = weight(_text_:data in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035196647 = score(doc=1868,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Bibliographic databases contain surrogates to a particular subset of the complete set of literature; some databases are very narrow in their scope, while others are multidisciplinary. These databases overlap in their coverage of the literature to a greater or lesser extent. The topic of Fuzzy Set Theory is examined to determine the overlap of coverage in the databases that index this topic. It was found that about 63% of records in the data set are unique to only one database, and the remaining 37% are duplicated in from two to 12 different databases. The overlap distribution is found to conform to a Lotka-type plot. The records with maximum overlap are identified; however, further work is needed to determine the significance of the high level of overlap in these records. The unique records are plotted using a Bradford-type form of data presentation and are found to conform (visually) to a hyperbolic distribution. The extent and causes of intra-database duplication (records duplicated in the one database) are also examined. Finally, the overlap in the top databases in the dataset were examined, and a high correlation was found between overlapping records, and overlapping DIALOG OneSearch categories.
  15. Gomez, I.: Coping with the problem of subject classification diversity (1996) 0.03 
    0.028094485 = product of:
  0.07023621 = sum of:
    0.052814763 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052814763 = score(doc=5074,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 5074, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5074)
    0.01742145 = product of:
      0.0348429 = sum of:
        0.0348429 = weight(_text_:data in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0348429 = score(doc=5074,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 5074, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The delimination of a research field in bibliometric studies presents the problem of the diversity of subject classifications used in the sources of input and output data. Classification of documents according the thematic codes or keywords is the most accurate method, mainly used is specialized bibliographic or patent databases. Classification of journals in disciplines presents lower specifity, and some shortcomings as the change over time of both journals and disciplines and the increasing interdisciplinarity of research. Standardization of subject classifications emerges as an important point in bibliometric studies in order to allow international comparisons, although flexibility is needed to meet the needs of local studies
  16. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.03 
    0.02744515 = product of:
  0.06861287 = sum of:
    0.053350966 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053350966 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.015261904 = product of:
      0.030523809 = sum of:
        0.030523809 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030523809 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.
  17. Chang, Y.-W.; Huang, M.-H.: ¬A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science : using three bibliometric methods (2012) 0.03 
    0.02744515 = product of:
  0.06861287 = sum of:
    0.053350966 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053350966 = score(doc=4959,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
    0.015261904 = product of:
      0.030523809 = sum of:
        0.030523809 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030523809 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This study uses three bibliometric methods: direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis, to investigate interdisciplinary changes in library and information science (LIS) from 1978 to 2007. The results reveal that LIS researchers most frequently cite publications in their own discipline. In addition, half of all co-authors of LIS articles are affiliated with LIS-related institutes. The results confirm that the degree of interdisciplinarity within LIS has increased, particularly co-authorship. However, the study found sources of direct citations in LIS articles are widely distributed across 30 disciplines, but co-authors of LIS articles are distributed across only 25 disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity was found ranging from 0.61 to 0.82 with citation to references in all articles being the highest and that of co-authorship being the lowest. Percentages of contribution attributable to LIS show a decreasing tendency based on the results of direct citation and co-authorship analysis, but an increasing tendency based on those of bibliographic coupling analysis. Such differences indicate each of the three bibliometric methods has its strength and provides insights respectively for viewing various aspects of interdisciplinarity, suggesting the use of no single bibliometric method can reveal all aspects of interdisciplinarity due to its multifaceted nature.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33
  18. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.03 
    0.026597565 = product of:
  0.13298783 = sum of:
    0.13298783 = sum of:
      0.059730686 = weight(_text_:data in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059730686 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.4192326 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.07325713 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07325713 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  19. Bar-Ilan, J.: ¬The Web as an information source on informetrics? : A content analysis (2000) 0.03 
    0.026555115 = product of:
  0.06638779 = sum of:
    0.045269795 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045269795 = score(doc=4587,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
    0.021117989 = product of:
      0.042235978 = sum of:
        0.042235978 = weight(_text_:data in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042235978 = score(doc=4587,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This article addresses the question of whether the Web can serve as an information source for research. Specifically, it analyzes by way of content analysis the Web pages retrieved by the major search engines on a particular date (June 7, 1998), as a result of the query 'informetrics OR informetric'. In 807 out of the 942 retrieved pages, the search terms were mentioned in the context of information science. Over 70% of the pages contained only indirect information on the topic, in the form of hypertext links and bibliographical references without annotation. The bibliographical references extracted from the Web pages were analyzed, and lists of most productive authors, most cited authors, works, and sources were compiled. The list of reference obtained from the Web was also compared to data retrieved from commercial databases. For most cases, the list of references extracted from the Web outperformed the commercial, bibliographic databases. The results of these comparisons indicate that valuable, freely available data is hidden in the Web waiting to be extracted from the millions of Web pages
  20. Perez-Molina, E.: ¬The role of patent citations as a footprint of technology (2018) 0.03 
    0.026555115 = product of:
  0.06638779 = sum of:
    0.045269795 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045269795 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
    0.021117989 = product of:
      0.042235978 = sum of:
        0.042235978 = weight(_text_:data in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042235978 = score(doc=4187,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The fact that patents are documents highly constrained by law and structured by international treaties make them a unique body of publications for tracing the history and evolution of technology. The distinctiveness of prior art patent citations compared to bibliographic references in the nonpatent literature is discussed. Starting from these observations and using the patent classification scheme as a framework of reference, we have identified a data structure, the "technology footprint," derived from the patents cited as prior art for a selected set of patents. This data structure will provide us with dynamic information about the technological components of the selected set of patents, which represents a technology, company, or inventor. Two case studies are presented in order to illustrate the visualization of the technology footprint: one concerning an inventor-Mr. Engelbart, the inventor of the "computer mouse"-and another concerning the early years of a technology-computerized tomography.

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 523
  • el 12
  • m 9
  • s 3
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications