Search (228 results, page 1 of 12)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013) 0.05 
    0.049736265 = product of:
  0.24868132 = sum of:
    0.24868132 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24868132 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33185944 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039143547 = 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.
  2. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990) 0.03 
    0.029833892 = product of:
  0.07458473 = sum of:
    0.037460856 = product of:
      0.07492171 = sum of:
        0.07492171 = weight(_text_:29 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07492171 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13769476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.037123874 = product of:
      0.07424775 = sum of:
        0.07424775 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07424775 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13707404 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:29
  3. Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015) 0.02 
    0.023545703 = product of:
  0.11772851 = sum of:
    0.11772851 = sum of:
      0.08022773 = weight(_text_:europe in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08022773 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23842667 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.039143547 = queryNorm
          0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
      0.037500776 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037500776 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13707404 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.039143547 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    17. 9.2018 18:22:23
  4. Ohly, P.: Dimensions of globality : a bibliometric analysis (2016) 0.02 
    0.01704794 = product of:
  0.042619847 = sum of:
    0.021406204 = product of:
      0.042812407 = sum of:
        0.042812407 = weight(_text_:29 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042812407 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13769476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 4942, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4942)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.021213641 = product of:
      0.042427283 = sum of:
        0.042427283 = weight(_text_:22 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042427283 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13707404 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4942, 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=4942)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    20. 1.2019 11:22:31
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei
  5. Neth, M.: Citation analysis and the Web (1998) 0.01 
    0.014916946 = product of:
  0.037292365 = sum of:
    0.018730428 = product of:
      0.037460856 = sum of:
        0.037460856 = weight(_text_:29 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037460856 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13769476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.018561937 = product of:
      0.037123874 = sum of:
        0.037123874 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037123874 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13707404 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 108, 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=108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    10. 1.1999 16:22:37
    Source
    Art documentation. 17(1998) no.1, S.29-33
  6. Burrell, Q.L.: Predicting future citation behavior (2003) 0.01 
    0.014916946 = product of:
  0.037292365 = sum of:
    0.018730428 = product of:
      0.037460856 = sum of:
        0.037460856 = weight(_text_:29 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037460856 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13769476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.018561937 = product of:
      0.037123874 = sum of:
        0.037123874 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037123874 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13707404 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3837, 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=3837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    29. 3.2003 19:22:48
  7. Haycock, L.A.: Citation analysis of education dissertations for collection development (2004) 0.01 
    0.0127859535 = product of:
  0.031964883 = sum of:
    0.016054653 = product of:
      0.032109305 = sum of:
        0.032109305 = weight(_text_:29 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032109305 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13769476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.01591023 = product of:
      0.03182046 = sum of:
        0.03182046 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03182046 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13707404 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, 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=135)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    17.12.2006 19:44:29
  8. Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014) 0.01 
    0.0127859535 = product of:
  0.031964883 = sum of:
    0.016054653 = product of:
      0.032109305 = sum of:
        0.032109305 = weight(_text_:29 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032109305 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13769476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.01591023 = product of:
      0.03182046 = sum of:
        0.03182046 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03182046 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13707404 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:11:29
  9. Rodríguez-Navarro, A.: Research assessment based on infrequent achievements : a comparison of the United States and Europe in terms of highly cited papers and Nobel Prizes (2016) 0.01 
    0.011345915 = product of:
  0.056729574 = sum of:
    0.056729574 = product of:
      0.11345915 = sum of:
        0.11345915 = weight(_text_:europe in 2780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11345915 = score(doc=2780,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23842667 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.47586602 = fieldWeight in 2780, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Scientific progress is driven by important, infrequent discoveries that cannot be readily identified and quantified, which makes research assessment very difficult. Bibliometric indicators of important discoveries have been formulated using an empirical approach, based on the mathematical properties of the high-citation tail of the citation distribution. To investigate the theoretical basis of such formulations this study compares the US/European research performance ratios expressed in terms of highly cited papers and Nobel Prize-winning discoveries. The research performance ratio in terms of papers was studied from the citation distributions in the fields of chemistry, physics, and biochemistry and molecular biology. It varied as a function of the citation level. Selecting an appropriate high citation level, the ratios in terms of highly cited papers were compared with the corresponding ratios for Nobel Prize-winning discoveries in Chemistry, Physics, and Physiology or Medicine. Research performance ratios expressed in terms of highly cited papers and Nobel Prize-winning discoveries are reasonably similar, and suggest that the research success of the United States is almost 3 times that of Europe. A similar conclusion was obtained using articles published in Nature and Science.
  10. Hassler, M.: Web analytics : Metriken auswerten, Besucherverhalten verstehen, Website optimieren ; [Metriken analysieren und interpretieren ; Besucherverhalten verstehen und auswerten ; Website-Ziele definieren, Webauftritt optimieren und den Erfolg steigern] (2009) 0.01 
    0.011112152 = product of:
  0.055560756 = sum of:
    0.055560756 = weight(_text_:conversion in 3586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055560756 = score(doc=3586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23715246 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0585327 = idf(docFreq=280, maxDocs=44218)
          0.039143547 = queryNorm
        0.23428287 = fieldWeight in 3586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0585327 = idf(docFreq=280, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3586)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Web Analytics bezeichnet die Sammlung, Analyse und Auswertung von Daten der Website-Nutzung mit dem Ziel, diese Informationen zum besseren Verständnis des Besucherverhaltens sowie zur Optimierung der Website zu nutzen. Je nach Ziel der eigenen Website - z.B. die Vermittlung eines Markenwerts oder die Vermehrung von Kontaktanfragen, Bestellungen oder Newsletter-Abonnements - können Sie anhand von Web Analytics herausfinden, wo sich Schwachstellen Ihrer Website befinden und wie Sie Ihre eigenen Ziele durch entsprechende Optimierungen besser erreichen. Dabei ist Web Analytics nicht nur für Website-Betreiber und IT-Abteilungen interessant, sondern wird insbesondere auch mehr und mehr für Marketing und Management nutzbar. Mit diesem Buch lernen Sie, wie Sie die Nutzung Ihrer Website analysieren. Sie können z. B. untersuchen, welche Traffic-Quelle am meisten Umsatz bringt oder welche Bereiche der Website besonders häufig genutzt werden und vieles mehr. Auf diese Weise werden Sie Ihre Besucher, ihr Verhalten und ihre Motivation besser kennen lernen, Ihre Website darauf abstimmen und somit Ihren Erfolg steigern können. Um aus Web Analytics einen wirklichen Mehrwert ziehen zu können, benötigen Sie fundiertes Wissen. Marco Hassler gibt Ihnen in seinem Buch einen umfassenden Einblick in Web Analytics. Er zeigt Ihnen detailliert, wie das Verhalten der Besucher analysiert wird und welche Metriken Sie wann sinnvoll anwenden können. Im letzten Teil des Buches zeigt Ihnen der Autor, wie Sie Ihre Auswertungsergebnisse dafür nutzen, über Conversion-Messungen die Website auf ihre Ziele hin zu optimieren. Ziel dieses Buches ist es, konkrete Web-Analytics-Kenntnisse zu vermitteln und wertvolle praxisorientierte Tipps zu geben. Dazu schlägt das Buch die Brücke zu tangierenden Themenbereichen wie Usability, User-Centered-Design, Online Branding, Online-Marketing oder Suchmaschinenoptimierung. Marco Hassler gibt Ihnen klare Hinweise und Anleitungen, wie Sie Ihre Ziele erreichen.
  11. Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020) 0.01 
    0.010654963 = product of:
  0.026637405 = sum of:
    0.013378878 = product of:
      0.026757756 = sum of:
        0.026757756 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026757756 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13769476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013258526 = product of:
      0.026517052 = sum of:
        0.026517052 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026517052 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13707404 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  12. Dalen, H.P. van; Henkens, K.: Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture : a worldwide survey (2012) 0.01 
    0.009627328 = product of:
  0.04813664 = sum of:
    0.04813664 = product of:
      0.09627328 = sum of:
        0.09627328 = weight(_text_:europe in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09627328 = score(doc=2299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23842667 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.4037857 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    How does publication pressure in modern-day universities affect the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in science? By using a worldwide survey among demographers in developed and developing countries, the authors show that the large majority perceive the publication pressure as high, but more so in Anglo-Saxon countries and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. However, scholars see both the pros (upward mobility) and cons (excessive publication and uncitedness, neglect of policy issues, etc.) of the so-called publish-or-perish culture. By measuring behavior in terms of reading and publishing, and perceived extrinsic rewards and stated intrinsic rewards of practicing science, it turns out that publication pressure negatively affects the orientation of demographers towards policy and knowledge sharing. There are no signs that the pressure affects reading and publishing outside the core discipline.
  13. Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.-D.: What is behind the curtain of the Leiden Ranking? (2015) 0.01 
    0.009627328 = product of:
  0.04813664 = sum of:
    0.04813664 = product of:
      0.09627328 = sum of:
        0.09627328 = weight(_text_:europe in 2171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09627328 = score(doc=2171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23842667 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.4037857 = fieldWeight in 2171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Even with very well-documented rankings of universities, it is difficult for an individual university to reconstruct its position in the ranking. What is the reason behind whether a university places higher or lower in the ranking? Taking the example of ETH Zurich, the aim of this communication is to reconstruct how the high position of ETHZ (in Europe rank no. 1 in PP[top 10%]) in the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) Leiden Ranking 2013 in the field "social sciences, arts and humanities" came about. According to our analyses, the bibliometric indicator values of a university depend very strongly on weights that result in differing estimates of both the total number of a university's publications and the number of publications with a citation impact in the 90th percentile, or PP(top 10%). In addition, we examine the effect of weights at the level of individual publications. Based on the results, we offer recommendations for improving the Leiden Ranking (for example, publication of sample calculations to increase transparency).
  14. Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986) 0.01 
    0.008485457 = product of:
  0.042427283 = sum of:
    0.042427283 = product of:
      0.084854566 = sum of:
        0.084854566 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084854566 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13707404 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, 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=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
  15. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.008485457 = product of:
  0.042427283 = sum of:
    0.042427283 = product of:
      0.084854566 = sum of:
        0.084854566 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084854566 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13707404 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  16. Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987) 0.01 
    0.008485457 = product of:
  0.042427283 = sum of:
    0.042427283 = product of:
      0.084854566 = sum of:
        0.084854566 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084854566 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13707404 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, 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=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
  17. Sin, S.-C.J.: International coauthorship and citation impact : a bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980-2008 (2011) 0.01 
    0.008022773 = product of:
  0.040113866 = sum of:
    0.040113866 = product of:
      0.08022773 = sum of:
        0.08022773 = weight(_text_:europe in 4753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08022773 = score(doc=4753,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23842667 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 4753, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    International collaborative papers are increasingly common in journals of many disciplines. These types of papers are often cited more frequently. To identify the coauthorship trends within Library and Information Science (LIS), this study analyzed 7,489 papers published in six leading publications (ARIST, IP&M, JAMIA, JASIST, MISQ, and Scientometrics) over the last three decades. Logistic regression tested the relationships between citations received and seven factors: authorship type, author's subregion, country income level, publication year, number of authors, document type, and journal title. The main authorship type since 1995 was national collaboration. It was also the dominant type for all publications studied except ARIST, and for all regions except Africa. For citation counts, the logistic regression analysis found all seven factors were significant. Papers that included international collaboration, Northern European authors, and authors in high-income nations had higher odds of being cited more. Papers from East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Southern Europe had lower odds than North American papers. As discussed in the bibliometric literature, Merton's Matthew Effect sheds light on the differential citation counts based on the authors' subregion. This researcher proposes geographies of invisible colleagues and a geographic scope effect to further investigate the relationships between author geographic affiliation and citation impact.
  18. Zuccala, A.; Guns, R.; Cornacchia, R.; Bod, R.: Can we rank scholarly book publishers? : a bibliometric experiment with the field of history (2015) 0.01 
    0.008022773 = product of:
  0.040113866 = sum of:
    0.040113866 = product of:
      0.08022773 = sum of:
        0.08022773 = weight(_text_:europe in 2037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08022773 = score(doc=2037,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23842667 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 2037, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2037)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This is a publisher ranking study based on a citation data grant from Elsevier, specifically, book titles cited in Scopus history journals (2007-2011) and matching metadata from WorldCat® (i.e., OCLC numbers, ISBN codes, publisher records, and library holding counts). Using both resources, we have created a unique relational database designed to compare citation counts to books with international library holdings or libcitations for scholarly book publishers. First, we construct a ranking of the top 500 publishers and explore descriptive statistics at the level of publisher type (university, commercial, other) and country of origin. We then identify the top 50 university presses and commercial houses based on total citations and mean citations per book (CPB). In a third analysis, we present a map of directed citation links between journals and book publishers. American and British presses/publishing houses tend to dominate the work of library collection managers and citing scholars; however, a number of specialist publishers from Europe are included. Distinct clusters from the directed citation map indicate a certain degree of regionalism and subject specialization, where some journals produced in languages other than English tend to cite books published by the same parent press. Bibliometric rankings convey only a small part of how the actual structure of the publishing field has evolved; hence, challenges lie ahead for developers of new citation indices for books and bibliometricians interested in measuring book and publisher impacts.
  19. Kulczycki, E.; Huang, Y.; Zuccala, A.A.; Engels, T.C.E.; Ferrara, A.; Guns, R.; Pölönen, J.; Sivertsen, G.; Taskin, Z.; Zhang, L.: Uses of the Journal Impact Factor in national journal rankings in China and Europe (2022) 0.01 
    0.008022773 = product of:
  0.040113866 = sum of:
    0.040113866 = product of:
      0.08022773 = sum of:
        0.08022773 = weight(_text_:europe in 769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08022773 = score(doc=769,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23842667 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 769, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=769)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  20. Kozlowski, D.; Andersen, J.P.; Larivière, V.: ¬The decrease in uncited articles and its effect on the concentration of citations (2024) 0.01 
    0.008022773 = product of:
  0.040113866 = sum of:
    0.040113866 = product of:
      0.08022773 = sum of:
        0.08022773 = weight(_text_:europe in 1208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08022773 = score(doc=1208,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23842667 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.039143547 = queryNorm
            0.33648807 = fieldWeight in 1208, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.091085 = idf(docFreq=271, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1208)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Empirical evidence demonstrates that citations received by scholarly publications follow a pattern of preferential attachment, resulting in a power-law distribution. Such asymmetry has sparked significant debate regarding the use of citations for research evaluation. However, a consensus has yet to be established concerning the historical trends in citation concentration. Are citations becoming more concentrated in a small number of articles? Or have recent geopolitical and technical changes in science led to more decentralized distributions? This ongoing debate stems from a lack of technical clarity in measuring inequality. Given the variations in citation practices across disciplines and over time, it is crucial to account for multiple factors that can influence the findings. This article explores how reference-based and citation-based approaches, uncited articles, citation inflation, the expansion of bibliometric databases, disciplinary differences, and self-citations affect the evolution of citation concentration. Our results indicate a decreasing trend in citation concentration, primarily driven by a decline in uncited articles, which, in turn, can be attributed to the growing significance of Asia and Europe. On the whole, our findings clarify current debates on citation concentration and show that, contrary to a widely-held belief, citations are increasingly scattered.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 205
  • d 21
  • ro 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 222
  • m 4
  • el 3
  • r 2
  • b 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications