Search (72 results, page 1 of 4)

0.11755299 = product of:
  0.17632948 = sum of:
    0.13241635 = weight(_text_:social in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13241635 = score(doc=839,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.66085404 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
    0.043913126 = product of:
      0.08782625 = sum of:
        0.08782625 = weight(_text_:networks in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08782625 = score(doc=839,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.369525 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

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

0.09970447 = product of:
  0.1495567 = sum of:
    0.09987467 = weight(_text_:social in 3300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09987467 = score(doc=3300,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.49844736 = fieldWeight in 3300, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3300)
    0.049682032 = product of:
      0.099364065 = sum of:
        0.099364065 = weight(_text_:networks in 3300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099364065 = score(doc=3300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.4180698 = fieldWeight in 3300, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Seeks to describe the social networks, or invisible colleges, that make up a scientific speciality, in terms of mathematically precise sets generated by document citations and accessible through the Social Science Citation Index. The document and author sets that encompass a scientific specialty are the basis for some interdependent citation matrices. The method of construction of these sets and matrices is illustrated through an application to the literature on invisible colleges

0.074145645 = product of:
  0.11121846 = sum of:
    0.08739033 = weight(_text_:social in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08739033 = score(doc=6920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.43614143 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
    0.023828125 = product of:
      0.04765625 = sum of:
        0.04765625 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04765625 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, 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=6920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Over a 35-year period, Irving H. Sher played a critical role in the development and implementation of the Science Citation Index and other ISI products. Trained as a biochemist, statistician, and linguist, Sher brought a unique combination of talents to ISI as Director of Quality Control and Director of Research and Development. His talents as a teacher and mentor evoked loyalty. He was a particularly inventive but self-taught programmer. In addition to the SCI, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index,

Date

16.12.2001 14:01:22

Object

Social Sciences Citation Index

0.07017738 = product of:
  0.10526607 = sum of:
    0.061794292 = weight(_text_:social in 7827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061794292 = score(doc=7827,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 7827, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7827)
    0.04347178 = product of:
      0.08694356 = sum of:
        0.08694356 = weight(_text_:networks in 7827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08694356 = score(doc=7827,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.36581108 = fieldWeight in 7827, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7827)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

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

0.06919926 = product of:
  0.10379888 = sum of:
    0.07895786 = weight(_text_:social in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07895786 = score(doc=2095,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.39405724 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
    0.024841016 = product of:
      0.049682032 = sum of:
        0.049682032 = weight(_text_:networks in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049682032 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.2090349 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

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

0.06355341 = product of:
  0.095330104 = sum of:
    0.074906 = weight(_text_:social in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074906 = score(doc=3692,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.3738355 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
    0.020424107 = product of:
      0.040848214 = sum of:
        0.040848214 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040848214 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to examine the patterns of self citation in 6 disciplines distributed among the physical and social sciences and humanities. Sample articles were examined to deermine the relative numbers and ages of self citations and citations to other in the bibliographies and to the exposure given to each type of citation in the text of the articles. significant differences were found in the number and age of citations between disciplines. Overall, 9% of all citations were self citations; 15% of physical sciences citations were self citations, as opposed to 6% in the social sciences and 3% in the humanities. Within disciplines, there was no significantly different amount of coverage between self citations and citations to others. Overall, it appears that a lack of substantive differences in self citation behaviour is consistent across disciplines

Date

22. 5.1999 19:33:24

0.060152046 = product of:
  0.090228066 = sum of:
    0.05296654 = weight(_text_:social in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05296654 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
    0.037261523 = product of:
      0.07452305 = sum of:
        0.07452305 = weight(_text_:networks in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07452305 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.31355235 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

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

0.060152046 = product of:
  0.090228066 = sum of:
    0.05296654 = weight(_text_:social in 970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05296654 = score(doc=970,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 970, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=970)
    0.037261523 = product of:
      0.07452305 = sum of:
        0.07452305 = weight(_text_:networks in 970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07452305 = score(doc=970,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.31355235 = fieldWeight in 970, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=970)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

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

0.05708161 = product of:
  0.085622415 = sum of:
    0.061794292 = weight(_text_:social in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061794292 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
    0.023828125 = product of:
      0.04765625 = sum of:
        0.04765625 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04765625 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, 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=5269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This comparative case study of the diffusion and nondiffusion over time of eight theories in the social sciences uses citation analysis, citation context analysis, content analysis, surveys of editorial review boards, and personal interviews with theorists to develop a model of the theory functions that facilitate theory diffusion throughout specific intellectual communities. Unlike previous work on the diffusion of theories as innovations, this theory functions model differs in several important respects from the findings of previous studies that employed Everett Rogers's classic typology of innovation characteristics that promote diffusion. The model is also presented as a contribution to a more integrated theory of citation.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:20:01

0.05456706 = product of:
  0.08185059 = sum of:
    0.05296654 = weight(_text_:social in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05296654 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.028884051 = product of:
      0.057768103 = sum of:
        0.057768103 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057768103 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20%, 50%, and 80% of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.0501267 = product of:
  0.07519005 = sum of:
    0.04413878 = weight(_text_:social in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04413878 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
    0.03105127 = product of:
      0.06210254 = sum of:
        0.06210254 = weight(_text_:networks in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06210254 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

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

0.047081374 = product of:
  0.14124411 = sum of:
    0.14124411 = weight(_text_:social in 5647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14124411 = score(doc=5647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.704911 = fieldWeight in 5647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5647)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Social studies of science. 5(1975), S.423-441

0.047081374 = product of:
  0.14124411 = sum of:
    0.14124411 = weight(_text_:social in 5651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14124411 = score(doc=5651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.704911 = fieldWeight in 5651, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5651)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Social studies of science. 5(1975), S.86-92

0.047081374 = product of:
  0.14124411 = sum of:
    0.14124411 = weight(_text_:social in 7777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14124411 = score(doc=7777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.704911 = fieldWeight in 7777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7777)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Social studies of science. 16(1986), S.151-172

0.041196197 = product of:
  0.123588584 = sum of:
    0.123588584 = weight(_text_:social in 3073) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.123588584 = score(doc=3073,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.6167971 = fieldWeight in 3073, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3073)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.03603917 = product of:
  0.108117506 = sum of:
    0.108117506 = weight(_text_:social in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108117506 = score(doc=2946,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.5395851 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.

0.03531103 = product of:
  0.10593308 = sum of:
    0.10593308 = weight(_text_:social in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10593308 = score(doc=1825,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions

0.03531103 = product of:
  0.10593308 = sum of:
    0.10593308 = weight(_text_:social in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10593308 = score(doc=1953,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.52868325 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper examines the probability structure of the 2005 Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) Journal Citation Reports (JCR) by analyzing the Impact Factor distributions of their journals. The distribution of the SCI journals corresponded with a distribution generally modeled by the negative binomial distribution, whereas the SSCI distribution fit the Poisson distribution modeling random, rare events. Both Impact Factor distributions were positively skewed - the SCI much more so than the SSCI - indicating excess variance. One of the causes of this excess variance was that the journals highest in the Impact Factor in both JCRs tended to class in subject categories well funded by the National Institutes of Health. The main reason for the SCI Impact Factor distribution being more skewed than the SSCI one was that review journals defining disciplinary paradigms play a much more important role in the sciences than in the social sciences.

Object

Social Sciences Citation Index

0.033121355 = product of:
  0.099364065 = sum of:
    0.099364065 = product of:
      0.19872813 = sum of:
        0.19872813 = weight(_text_:networks in 6904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19872813 = score(doc=6904,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.8361396 = fieldWeight in 6904, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6904)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.03058025 = product of:
  0.09174075 = sum of:
    0.09174075 = weight(_text_:social in 75) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09174075 = score(doc=75,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.45785317 = fieldWeight in 75, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=75)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We investigated how citations from documents labeled by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) as "editorial material" contribute to the impact factor of academic journals in which they were published. Our analysis is based on records corresponding to the documents classified by the ISI as editorial material published in journals covered by the Social Sciences Citation Index between 1999 and 2003 (50,273 records corresponding to editorial material published in 2,374 journals). The results appear to rule out widespread manipulation of the impact factor by academic journals publishing large amounts of editorial material with many citations to the journal itself as a strategy to increase the impact factor.

Object

Social Sciences Citation Index