Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Wouters, P."
  1. Thelwall, M.; Wouters, P.; Fry, J.: Information-centered research for large-scale analyses of new information sources (2008) 0.02 
    0.016068233 = product of:
  0.08034117 = sum of:
    0.08034117 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08034117 = score(doc=1969,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.37785465 = fieldWeight in 1969, 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=1969)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    New mass publishing genres, such as blogs and personal home pages provide a rich source of social data that is yet to be fully exploited by the social sciences and humanities. Information-centered research (ICR) not only provides a genuinely new and useful information science research model for this type of data, but can also contribute to the emerging e-research infrastructure. Nevertheless, ICR should not be conducted on a purely abstract level, but should relate to potentially relevant problems.
  2. Wouters, P.; Vries, R. de: Formally citing the Web (2004) 0.02 
    0.015903428 = product of:
  0.07951714 = sum of:
    0.07951714 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07951714 = score(doc=3093,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.37397915 = fieldWeight in 3093, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3093)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    How do authors refer to Web-based information sources in their formal scientific publications? It is not yet weIl known how scientists and scholars actually include new types of information sources, available through the new media, in their published work. This article reports an a comparative study of the lists of references in 38 scientific journals in five different scientific and social scientific fields. The fields are sociology, library and information science, biochemistry and biotechnology, neuroscience, and the mathematics of computing. As is weIl known, references, citations, and hyperlinks play different roles in academic publishing and communication. Our study focuses an hyperlinks as attributes of references in formal scholarly publications. The study developed and applied a method to analyze the differential roles of publishing media in the analysis of scientific and scholarly literature references. The present secondary databases that include reference and citation data (the Web of Science) cannot be used for this type of research. By the automated processing and analysis of the full text of scientific and scholarly articles, we were able to extract the references and hyperlinks contained in these references in relation to other features of the scientific and scholarly literature. Our findings show that hyperlinking references are indeed, as expected, abundantly present in the formal literature. They also tend to cite more recent literature than the average reference. The large majority of the references are to Web instances of traditional scientific journals. Other types of Web-based information sources are less weIl represented in the lists of references, except in the case of pure e-journals. We conclude that this can be explained by taking the role of the publisher into account. Indeed, it seems that the shift from print-based to electronic publishing has created new roles for the publisher. By shaping the way scientific references are hyperlinking to other information sources, the publisher may have a large impact an the availability of scientific and scholarly information.
  3. Waltman, L.; Calero-Medina, C.; Kosten, J.; Noyons, E.C.M.; Tijssen, R.J.W.; Eck, N.J. van; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Raan, A.F.J. van; Visser, M.S.; Wouters, P.: ¬The Leiden ranking 2011/2012 : data collection, indicators, and interpretation (2012) 0.02 
    0.015717296 = product of:
  0.07858648 = sum of:
    0.07858648 = product of:
      0.15717296 = sum of:
        0.15717296 = weight(_text_:innovations in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15717296 = score(doc=514,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2958964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.5311756 = fieldWeight in 514, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=514)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. The comparison focuses on the methodological choices underlying the different rankings. Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations include (1) an indicator based on counting a university's highly cited publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non-English language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking and a number of limitations of the ranking are pointed out.
  4. Frandsen, T.F.; Wouters, P.: Turning working papers into journal articles : an exercise in microbibliometrics (2009) 0.00 
    0.0035378379 = product of:
  0.017689189 = sum of:
    0.017689189 = product of:
      0.035378378 = sum of:
        0.035378378 = weight(_text_:22 in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035378378 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2757, 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=2757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:59:25
  5. Costas, R.; Zahedi, Z.; Wouters, P.: ¬The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media : large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations (2015) 0.00 
    0.0029481982 = product of:
  0.014740991 = sum of:
    0.014740991 = product of:
      0.029481983 = sum of:
        0.029481983 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029481983 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Years

Themes