Search (90 results, page 1 of 5)

0.29960904 = product of:
  0.44941354 = sum of:
    0.13561662 = weight(_text_:electronic in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13561662 = score(doc=4654,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.69110936 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
    0.31379694 = sum of:
      0.25939313 = weight(_text_:publishing in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.25939313 = score(doc=4654,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          1.0577728 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
      0.05440382 = weight(_text_:22 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05440382 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4654, 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=4654)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

22. 1.2017 17:12:50

LCSH

Scholarly publishing / Evaluation
Scholarly electronic publishing / Evaluation

RSWK

Scholarly electronic publishing -- Evaluation

Subject

Scholarly electronic publishing -- Evaluation
Scholarly publishing / Evaluation
Scholarly electronic publishing / Evaluation

0.07975882 = product of:
  0.11963823 = sum of:
    0.050856233 = weight(_text_:electronic in 4458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050856233 = score(doc=4458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.259166 = fieldWeight in 4458, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4458)
    0.068781994 = product of:
      0.13756399 = sum of:
        0.13756399 = weight(_text_:publishing in 4458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13756399 = score(doc=4458,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.56096876 = fieldWeight in 4458, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4458)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article1 describes the possibilities to analyze open access (OA) publishing in the Netherlands in an international comparative way. OA publishing is now actively stimulated by Dutch science policy, similar to the United Kingdom. We conducted a bibliometric baseline measurement to assess the current situation, to be able to measure developments over time. We collected data from various sources, and for three different smaller European countries (the Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland). Not all of the analyses for this baseline measurement are included here. The analysis presented in this article focuses on the various ways OA can be defined using the Web of Science, limiting the analysis mainly to Gold OA. From the data we collected we can conclude that the way OA is currently registered in various electronic bibliographic databases is quite unclear, and various methods applied deliver results that are different, although the impact scores derived from the data point in the same direction.

0.062018268 = product of:
  0.0930274 = sum of:
    0.05993465 = weight(_text_:electronic in 5226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05993465 = score(doc=5226,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.30543008 = fieldWeight in 5226, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5226)
    0.03309275 = product of:
      0.0661855 = sum of:
        0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 5226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0661855 = score(doc=5226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 5226, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Imprint

Cambridge, MA : Elsevier, Chandos Publishing

LCSH

Electronic books

Subject

Electronic books

0.0503153 = product of:
  0.07547294 = sum of:
    0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042380195 = score(doc=1727,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 1727, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1727)
    0.03309275 = product of:
      0.0661855 = sum of:
        0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1727) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0661855 = score(doc=1727,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 1727, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1727)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This study examines whether there are some general trends across subject fields regarding the factors affecting the number of citations of articles, focusing especially on those factors that are not directly related to the quality or content of articles (extrinsic factors). For this purpose, from 6 selected subject fields (condensed matter physics, inorganic and nuclear chemistry, electric and electronic engineering, biochemistry and molecular biology, physiology, and gastroenterology), original articles published in the same year were sampled (n?=?230-240 for each field). Then, the citation counts received by the articles in relatively long citation windows (6 and 11 years after publication) were predicted by negative binomial multiple regression (NBMR) analysis for each field. Various article features about author collaboration, cited references, visibility, authors' achievements (measured by past publications and citedness), and publishing journals were considered as the explanatory variables of NBMR. Some generality across the fields was found with regard to the selected predicting factors and the degree of significance of these predictors. The Price index was the strongest predictor of citations, and number of references was the next. The effects of number of authors and authors' achievement measures were rather weak.

0.026748553 = product of:
  0.08024566 = sum of:
    0.08024566 = product of:
      0.16049132 = sum of:
        0.16049132 = weight(_text_:publishing in 2860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16049132 = score(doc=2860,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.6544635 = fieldWeight in 2860, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2860)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Generally, multicountry papers receive more citations than single-country ones. In this contribution, we examine if this rule also applies to American scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary journals. Concretely, we compare the citations received by American scientists in Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). It is shown that, statistically, American scientists publishing in Nature and Science do not benefit from international collaboration. This statement also holds for communicated submissions, but not for direct and for contributed submissions, to PNAS.

0.025520563 = product of:
  0.07656169 = sum of:
    0.07656169 = sum of:
      0.056160256 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056160256 = score(doc=3809,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.22901452 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.020401431 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020401431 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).
There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.019978218 = product of:
  0.05993465 = sum of:
    0.05993465 = weight(_text_:electronic in 2725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05993465 = score(doc=2725,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.30543008 = fieldWeight in 2725, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2725)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Previous studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the relevance of a citing document is related to the number of times with which the source document is cited. Despite the ease with which electronic documents would permit the incorporation of this information into citation-based document search and retrieval systems, the possibilities of repeated citations remain untapped. Part of this under-utilization may be due to the fact that very little is known regarding the pattern of repeated citations in scholarly literature or how this pattern may vary as a function of journal, academic discipline or self-citation. The current research addresses these unanswered questions in order to facilitate the future incorporation of repeated citation information into document search and retrieval systems. Using data mining of electronic texts, the citation characteristics of nine different journals, covering the three different academic fields (economics, computing, and medicine & biology), were characterized. It was found that the frequency (f) with which a reference is cited N or more times within a document is consistent across the sampled journals and academic fields. Self-citation causes an increase in frequency, and this effect becomes more pronounced for large N. The objectivity, automatability, and insensitivity of repeated citations to journal and discipline, present powerful opportunities for improving citation-based document search.

0.019978218 = product of:
  0.05993465 = sum of:
    0.05993465 = weight(_text_:electronic in 3094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05993465 = score(doc=3094,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.30543008 = fieldWeight in 3094, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3094)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

University libraries provide access to thousands of online journals and other content, spending millions of dollars annually on these electronic resources. Providing access to these online resources is costly, and it is difficult both to analyze the value of this content to the institution and to discern those journals that comparatively provide more value. In this research, we examine 1,510 journals from a large research university library, representing more than 40% of the university's annual subscription cost for electronic resources at the time of the study. We utilize a web analytics approach for the creation of a linear regression model to predict usage among these journals. We categorize metrics into two classes: global (journal focused) and local (institution dependent). Using 275 journals for our training set, our analysis shows that a combination of global and local metrics creates the strongest model for predicting full-text downloads. Our linear regression model has an accuracy of more than 80% in predicting downloads for the 1,235 journals in our test set. The implications of the findings are that university libraries that use local metrics have better insight into the value of a journal and therefore more efficient cost content management.

0.019978218 = product of:
  0.05993465 = sum of:
    0.05993465 = weight(_text_:electronic in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05993465 = score(doc=3384,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.30543008 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

LCSH

Electronic books

Subject

Electronic books

0.019106109 = product of:
  0.057318322 = sum of:
    0.057318322 = product of:
      0.114636645 = sum of:
        0.114636645 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114636645 = score(doc=1228,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.46747392 = fieldWeight in 1228, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Previous research indicates that during the past 20 years, the highest-quality work has been published in an increasingly diverse and larger group of journals. In this article, we examine whether this diversification has also affected the handful of elite journals that are traditionally considered to be the best. We examine citation patterns during the past 40 years of seven long-standing traditionally elite journals and six journals that have been increasing in importance during the past 20 years. To be among the top 5% or 1% cited papers, papers now need about twice as many citations as they did 40 years ago. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, elite journals have been publishing a decreasing proportion of these top-cited papers. This also applies to the two journals that are typically considered as the top venues and often used as bibliometric indicators of "excellence": Science and Nature. On the other hand, several new and established journals are publishing an increasing proportion of the most-cited papers. These changes bring new challenges and opportunities for all parties. Journals can enact policies to increase or maintain their relative position in the journal hierarchy. Researchers now have the option to publish in more diverse venues knowing that their work can still reach the same audiences. Finally, evaluators and administrators need to know that although there will always be a certain prestige associated with publishing in "elite" journals, journal hierarchies are in constant flux.

0.018720087 = product of:
  0.056160256 = sum of:
    0.056160256 = product of:
      0.11232051 = sum of:
        0.11232051 = weight(_text_:publishing in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11232051 = score(doc=2299,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.45802903 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.018720087 = product of:
  0.056160256 = sum of:
    0.056160256 = product of:
      0.11232051 = sum of:
        0.11232051 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11232051 = score(doc=1249,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.45802903 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study analyzes coauthorship patterns in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) for the period 2000 to 2010. The basis for the analysis is the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities (VABB-SHW), a comprehensive bibliographic database of peer-reviewed publications in the SSH by researchers affiliated with Flemish universities. Combining data on journal articles and book chapters, our findings indicate that collaborative publishing in the SSH is increasing, though considerable differences between disciplines remain. Conversely, we did observe a sharp decline in single-author publishing. We further demonstrate that coauthored SSH articles in journals indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) generally have a higher (and growing) number of coauthors than do either those in non-WoS journals or book chapters. This illustrates the need to include non-WoS data and book chapters when studying coauthorship in the SSH.

0.017649466 = product of:
  0.052948397 = sum of:
    0.052948397 = product of:
      0.10589679 = sum of:
        0.10589679 = weight(_text_:publishing in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10589679 = score(doc=4487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.4318339 = fieldWeight in 4487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A bibliometric method for analyzing and visualizing national research profiles is adapted to describe national preferences for publishing particular document types. Similarities in national profiles and national peculiarities are discussed based on the publication output of the 26 most active countries indexed in the Web of Science annual volume 2007.

0.015982574 = product of:
  0.04794772 = sum of:
    0.04794772 = weight(_text_:electronic in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04794772 = score(doc=4141,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.24434407 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Following the transition from print journals to electronic (hybrid) journals in the past decade, usage metrics have become an interesting complement to citation metrics. In this article we investigate the similarities of and differences between usage and citation indicators for pharmacy and pharmacology journals and relate the results to a previous study on oncology journals. For the comparison at journal level we use the classical citation indicators as defined in the Journal Citation Reports and compute the corresponding usage indicators. At the article level we not only relate download and citation counts to each other but also try to identify the possible effect of citations upon subsequent downloads. Usage data were provided by ScienceDirect both at the journal level and, for a few selected journals, on a paper-by-paper basis. The corresponding citation data were retrieved from the Web of Science and Journal Citation Reports. Our analyses show that electronic journals have become generally accepted over the last decade. While the supply of ScienceDirect pharma journals rose by 50% between 2001 and 2006, the total number of article downloads (full-text articles [FTAs]) multiplied more than 5-fold in the same period. This also impacted the pattern of scholarly communication (strong increase in the immediacy index) in the past few years. Our results further reveal a close relation between citation and download frequencies. We computed a high correlation at the journal level when using absolute values and a moderate to high correlation when relating usage and citation impact factors. At the article level the rank correlation between downloads and citations was only medium-sized. Differences between downloads and citations exist in terms of obsolescence characteristics. While more than half of the articles are downloaded in the publication year or 1 year later, the median cited half-life was nearly 6 years for our journal sample. Our attempt to reveal a direct influence of citations upon downloads proved not to be feasible.

0.015600072 = product of:
  0.046800215 = sum of:
    0.046800215 = product of:
      0.09360043 = sum of:
        0.09360043 = weight(_text_:publishing in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09360043 = score(doc=4132,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.38169086 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In a comprehensive research project, we investigated the predictive validity of selection decisions and reviewers' ratings at the open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP). ACP is a high-impact journal publishing papers on the Earth's atmosphere and the underlying chemical and physical processes. Scientific journals have to deal with the following question concerning the predictive validity: Are in fact the "best" scientific works selected from the manuscripts submitted? In this study we examined whether selecting the "best" manuscripts means selecting papers that after publication show top citation performance as compared to other papers in this research area. First, we appraised the citation impact of later published manuscripts based on the percentile citedness rank classes of the population distribution (scaling in a specific subfield). Second, we analyzed the association between the decisions (n = 677 accepted or rejected, but published elsewhere manuscripts) or ratings (reviewers' ratings for n = 315 manuscripts), respectively, and the citation impact classes of the manuscripts. The results confirm the predictive validity of the ACP peer review system.

0.015600072 = product of:
  0.046800215 = sum of:
    0.046800215 = product of:
      0.09360043 = sum of:
        0.09360043 = weight(_text_:publishing in 2037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09360043 = score(doc=2037,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.38169086 = fieldWeight in 2037, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2037)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.015443282 = product of:
  0.046329845 = sum of:
    0.046329845 = product of:
      0.09265969 = sum of:
        0.09265969 = weight(_text_:publishing in 4505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09265969 = score(doc=4505,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.37785465 = fieldWeight in 4505, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Der Artikel ist Teil einer größeren Untersuchung zu den Potentialen von Open Access Publishing zur Erhöhung der Publikations- und damit Karrierechancen von Sozialwissenschaftlerinnen. Es werden drei inhaltlich und methodisch ähnliche sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften verglichen: das Open-Access-Journal "Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung" ("FQS") und die zwei Closed-Access-/Hybridjournale "Zeitschrift für qualitative Forschung" und "Sozialer Sinn". Erhoben wird (a) der jeweilige Frauenanteil unter Redaktions- und Beiratsmitgliedern dieser drei Zeitschriften (N=184 insgesamt), (b) aufwändig rekonstruiert und analysiert wird die Genderstruktur der Autorenschaften aller in den drei Zeitschriften zwischen 2000 und 2008 veröffentlichten Beiträge (Totalerhebung, N=1557 insgesamt).

0.014126732 = product of:
  0.042380195 = sum of:
    0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042380195 = score(doc=294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to explore the journal bibliometric characteristics of the Journal of Documentation (JOD) and the subject relationship with other disciplines by citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The citation data were drawn from references of each article of JOD during 1998 and 2008. Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, Library of Congress Subject Heading, retrieved from the WorldCat and LISA database were used to identify the main class, subclass and subject of cited journals and books. Findings - The results of this study revealed that journal articles are the most cited document, followed by books and book chapters, electronic resources, and conference proceedings, respectively. The three main classes of cited journals in JOD papers are library science, science, and social sciences. The three subclasses of non-LIS journals that were highly cited in JOD papers are Science, "Mathematics. Computer science", and "Industries. Land use. Labor". The three highly cited subjects of library and information science journals encompass searching, information work, and online information retrieval. The most cited main class of books in JOD papers is library and information science, followed by social sciences, science, "Philosophy. Psychology. Religion." The three highly cited subclasses of books in JOD papers are "Books (General). Writing. Paleography. Book industries and trade. Libraries. Bibliography," "Philology and linguistics," and Science, and the most cited subject of books is information storage and retrieval systems. Originality/value - Results for the present research found that information science, as represented by JOD, is a developing discipline with an expanding literature relating to multiple subject areas.

0.014126732 = product of:
  0.042380195 = sum of:
    0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042380195 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers.

0.013600955 = product of:
  0.040802862 = sum of:
    0.040802862 = product of:
      0.081605725 = sum of:
        0.081605725 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081605725 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

18. 3.2014 19:13:22