Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

0.04266995 = product of:
  0.12800984 = sum of:
    0.12800984 = sum of:
      0.089686126 = weight(_text_:methodology in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.089686126 = score(doc=201,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.42231607 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
      0.038323715 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038323715 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047143444 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.

Date

3. 1.2007 17:22:03

0.017032763 = product of:
  0.051098287 = sum of:
    0.051098287 = product of:
      0.102196574 = sum of:
        0.102196574 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102196574 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.017032763 = product of:
  0.051098287 = sum of:
    0.051098287 = product of:
      0.102196574 = sum of:
        0.102196574 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102196574 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

7. 2.2005 14:10:22

0.0150549775 = product of:
  0.04516493 = sum of:
    0.04516493 = product of:
      0.09032986 = sum of:
        0.09032986 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09032986 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.012331214 = product of:
  0.03699364 = sum of:
    0.03699364 = product of:
      0.07398728 = sum of:
        0.07398728 = weight(_text_:methodology in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07398728 = score(doc=37,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.348393 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes the construction of improved informetric models of individual scientific and technological areas on the basis of individual co citation clusters. The developed methodology of replenishment of research front with accidently absent papers describes the model more completely. Proposes the simple method of cluster 'dynamization' for the study of evolution of research area. The transition under consideration from co citation clusters to lexical maps of papers and patents enables the monitoring of the relationshuip between R and D in a given technological area. Provides the example from modern chemical engineering of Pressure-Swing Adsorption

0.012331214 = product of:
  0.03699364 = sum of:
    0.03699364 = product of:
      0.07398728 = sum of:
        0.07398728 = weight(_text_:methodology in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07398728 = score(doc=1735,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.348393 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of new citation-enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as a data source for performing citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific's citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation-enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus. Findings - The study suggests that citation-enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis. Originality/value - The paper presents a valuable overview of new citation-enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation.

0.010645477 = product of:
  0.03193643 = sum of:
    0.03193643 = product of:
      0.06387286 = sum of:
        0.06387286 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06387286 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25

0.010569612 = product of:
  0.031708833 = sum of:
    0.031708833 = product of:
      0.063417666 = sum of:
        0.063417666 = weight(_text_:methodology in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063417666 = score(doc=4541,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 4541, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The methodology and findings are presented of an empirical study comparing local citation patterns with the holdings lists of a number of sources of journal articles. These sources were the British Library Document Supply Centre (BLDSC) and the BL inside service, library holdings, ProQuest Direct, SearchBank, EiText and a linking system including both the Geobase database and the BLDSC. The value of local citation figures is discussed, as is the concept of a "core" of journal titles, from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Using these figures to represent the local use of journal articles, the coverage of the document sources was found to vary widely. Unsurprisingly, the BLDSC was found to offer the widest coverage. Newer, electronic systems generally fared less well, but may offer other advantages.

0.009032987 = product of:
  0.027098961 = sum of:
    0.027098961 = product of:
      0.054197922 = sum of:
        0.054197922 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054197922 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Based on articles published in 1990-2004 in 21 library and information science (LIS) journals, a set of cocitation analyses was performed to study changes in research fronts over the last 15 years, where LIS is at now, and to discuss where it is heading. To study research fronts, here defined as current and influential cocited articles, a citations among documents methodology was applied; and to study changes, the analyses were time-sliced into three 5-year periods. The results show a stable structure of two distinct research fields: informetrics and information seeking and retrieval (ISR). However, experimental retrieval research and user oriented research have merged into one ISR field; and IR and informetrics also show signs of coming closer together, sharing research interests and methodologies, making informetrics research more visible in mainstream LIS research. Furthermore, the focus on the Internet, both in ISR research and in informetrics-where webometrics quickly has become a dominating research area-is an important change. The future is discussed in terms of LIS dependency on technology, how integration of research areas as well as technical systems can be expected to continue to characterize LIS research, and how webometrics will continue to develop and find applications.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=839,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 1729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=1729,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 1729, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1729)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present a narrative review of studies on the citing behavior of scientists, covering mainly research published in the last 15 years. Based on the results of these studies, the paper seeks to answer the question of the extent to which scientists are motivated to cite a publication not only to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of scientific peers, but also for other, possibly non-scientific, reasons. Design/methodology/approach - The review covers research published from the early 1960s up to mid-2005 (approximately 30 studies on citing behavior-reporting results in about 40 publications). Findings - The general tendency of the results of the empirical studies makes it clear that citing behavior is not motivated solely by the wish to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of colleague scientists, since the individual studies reveal also other, in part non-scientific, factors that play a part in the decision to cite. However, the results of the studies must also be deemed scarcely reliable: the studies vary widely in design, and their results can hardly be replicated. Many of the studies have methodological weaknesses. Furthermore, there is evidence that the different motivations of citers are "not so different or 'randomly given' to such an extent that the phenomenon of citation would lose its role as a reliable measure of impact". Originality/value - Given the increasing importance of evaluative bibliometrics in the world of scholarship, the question "What do citation counts measure?" is a particularly relevant and topical issue.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=1900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which library and information science (LIS) issues have been handled in the formulation of recent UK Higher Education policy concerned with research quality evaluation. Design/methodology/approach - A chronological review of decision making about digital rights arrangements for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and of recent announcements about the new shape of metrics-based assessment in the Research Excellence Framework, which supersedes the RAE. Against this chronological framework, the likely nature of LIS practitioner reactions to the flow of decision making is suggested. Findings - It was found that a weak grasp of LIS issues by decision makers undermines the process whereby effective research evaluation models are created. LIS professional opinion should be sampled before key decisions are made. Research limitations/implications - This paper makes no sophisticated comments on the complex research issues underlying advanced bibliometric research evaluation models. It does point out that sophisticated and expensive bibliometric consultancies arrive at many conclusions about metrics-based research assessment that are common knowledge amongst LIS practitioners. Practical implications - Practical difficulties arise when one announces a decision to move to a new and specific type of research evaluation indicator before one has worked out anything very specific about that indicator. Originality/value - In this paper, the importance of information management issues to the mainstream issues of government and public administration is underlined. The most valuable conclusion of this paper is that, because LIS issues are now at the heart of democratic decision making, LIS practitioners and professionals should be given some sort of role in advising on such matters.

0.00880801 = product of:
  0.02642403 = sum of:
    0.02642403 = product of:
      0.05284806 = sum of:
        0.05284806 = weight(_text_:methodology in 4628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05284806 = score(doc=4628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose Literature practices represent the process leading up to the citation of a source, and consist of the selection, reading and citing of sources. The purpose of this paper is to explore possible factors that might influence researchers during this process and discover possible consequences of researchers' citation behaviours. Design/methodology/approach In this exploratory study, various factors which could influence literature practices were explored via a questionnaire amongst 112 researchers. Participants were first authors of articles published in 2016 in one of five different journals within the disciplines of experimental psychology, educational sciences and social psychology. Academic positions of the participants ranged from PhD student to full professor. Findings Frequencies and percentages showed that researchers seemed to be influenced in their literature practices by various factors, such as editors suggesting articles and motivation to cite. Additionally, a high percentage of researchers reported taking shortcuts when citing articles (e.g. using secondary citations and reading selectively). Logistic regression did not reveal a clear relationship between academic work experience and research practices. Practical implications Seeing that researchers seem to be influenced by a variety of factors in their literature practices, the scientific community might benefit from better citation practices and guidelines in order to provide more structure to the process of literature practices. Originality/value This paper provides first insights into researchers' literature practices. Possible reasons for problems with citation accuracy and replicating research findings are highlighted. Opportunities for further research on the topic of citation behaviours are presented.

0.0085163815 = product of:
  0.025549144 = sum of:
    0.025549144 = product of:
      0.051098287 = sum of:
        0.051098287 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051098287 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22

0.0074518337 = product of:
  0.0223555 = sum of:
    0.0223555 = product of:
      0.044711 = sum of:
        0.044711 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044711 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

16.12.2001 14:01:22

0.0074518337 = product of:
  0.0223555 = sum of:
    0.0223555 = product of:
      0.044711 = sum of:
        0.044711 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044711 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:20:01

0.0074518337 = product of:
  0.0223555 = sum of:
    0.0223555 = product of:
      0.044711 = sum of:
        0.044711 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044711 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59

0.007046408 = product of:
  0.021139223 = sum of:
    0.021139223 = product of:
      0.042278446 = sum of:
        0.042278446 = weight(_text_:methodology in 863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042278446 = score(doc=863,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21236731 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.1990817 = fieldWeight in 863, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=863)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - Citation analysis is one of the popular methods employed for identification of core documents and complex relationship between citing and cited documents for a particular scholarly community in a geographical proximity. The present citation study is to understand the information needs, use pattern and use behaviour of library and information science researchers particularly engaged in the field of knowledge organization. Design/methodology/approach - The data relating to all the references appended to the articles during the period under study were collected and tabulated. Findings - Citation analysis of the journal for the period under study reveals that the average number of citations is around 21 per article. The major source of information is books and documents published during the later half of the century (1982-91). Authors from the USA, UK and Germany are the major contributors to the journal. India is ranked seventh in terms of contributions. Research limitations/implications - The study undertaken is limited to nine years, i.e. 1993-2001. The model citation index of the journal is analyzed using the first seven core authors. Practical implications - Ranking of periodicals helps to identify the core periodicals cited in the journal Knowledge Organization. Ranking of authors is done to know the eminent personalities in the subject, whose work is used by the authors to refine their ideas on the subject or topic. Originality/value - Model Citation Index for the first seven most cited authors was worked out and it reveals the historical relationship of cited and citing documents. This model citation index can be used to identify, the most cited authors as researchers currently working on special problems, to determine whether a paper has been cited, whether there has been a review of a subject, whether a concept has been applied, a theory confirmed or a method improved.

0.006387286 = product of:
  0.019161858 = sum of:
    0.019161858 = product of:
      0.038323715 = sum of:
        0.038323715 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038323715 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16508831 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047143444 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles