Search (32 results, page 1 of 2)

0.03937361 = product of:
  0.19686805 = sum of:
    0.19686805 = sum of:
      0.15559328 = weight(_text_:innovations in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15559328 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2958964 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043520276 = queryNorm
          0.525837 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
      0.041274775 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041274775 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043520276 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

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

Date

22. 7.2006 15:20:01

0.03462122 = product of:
  0.08655305 = sum of:
    0.06886386 = weight(_text_:publishing in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06886386 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
    0.017689189 = product of:
      0.035378378 = sum of:
        0.035378378 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035378378 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.032917526 = product of:
  0.16458763 = sum of:
    0.16458763 = weight(_text_:technological in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16458763 = score(doc=37,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.7117617 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.019004943 = product of:
  0.09502471 = sum of:
    0.09502471 = weight(_text_:technological in 4259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09502471 = score(doc=4259,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.41093582 = fieldWeight in 4259, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4259)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Discusses evaluation techniques as an integral part of science with the emphasis on evalution for policy purposes. Outlines early attempts to validate the use of biliometric indicators. Concludes that: best results are obtained by applying a variety of methods simultaneously; reliable results can be obtained from citation analysis for purely scientific subfields such as physics; and citation analysis tends to give unreliable results for technological subjects. Concludes that bibliometrics as a technique for determining policy should never be used on its own. Describes an evaluation method used for selecting research projects for financial support, as applied by STW, the technology branch of the Netherlands' research council, NWO

0.01623137 = product of:
  0.08115684 = sum of:
    0.08115684 = weight(_text_:publishing in 213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08115684 = score(doc=213,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.38169086 = fieldWeight in 213, 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=213)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Four cases, illustrated by four examples, of duplicate or highly related publications can be distinguished and are analyzed here using citation data obtained from the Science Citation Index (SCI): (1) publication by different authors in the same journal; (2) the same author(s) publishing in different journals; (3) publication by different authors in different journals; (4) the same author(s) publishing highly related papers simultaneously in the same journal, often as part of a series of papers. Example 1, illustrating case 1, is an occurrence of highly related publications in mechanistic organic chemistry. Example 2, from analytical organic chemistry, contains elements of cases 2 and 3. Example 3, dealing solely with case 3, discusses two time-delayed publications from analytical biochemistry, which were highlighted by Garfield several times in the past to show how the SCI could be utilized to avoid duplicate publication. Example 4, derived from synthetic organic chemistry (total syntheses of taxol), contains elements of cases 1, 3, and 4 and, to a lesser extent, case 2. The citation records of the highly related or duplicate publications can deviate considerably from the journal impact factors; this was observed in three of the four examples relating to cases 2, 3, and 4. The examples suggest that citation of a paper may depend significantly on the journal in which it is published. As an indicator of this dependence, the journals in which the papers used in the present examples appeared were examined. Other factors such as key words in the paper title may also play a role.

0.016068233 = product of:
  0.08034117 = sum of:
    0.08034117 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08034117 = score(doc=3044,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.37785465 = fieldWeight in 3044, 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=3044)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reports recent experiences with the publishing, via the Internet and WWW of ISI's biweekly newspaper, The Scientist; which was originally mounted on the NSFnet. Compares the use of the Internet for SDI by comparing Web searches via AltaVista with similar searches on CD-ROM. Predicts that future current awareness services and SDI services will be linked to electronic periodicals in electronic libraries. Concludes with a note on cited reference searching, a variation on the theme of hypertext searching, with particular reference to SCI and Web crawlers

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.

0.013772773 = product of:
  0.06886386 = sum of:
    0.06886386 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06886386 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Gives an outline of a new bibliometric database based upon all articles published by authors from the Netherlands and processed during 1980-1993 by ISI for the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Describes various types of information added to the database: data on articles citing the Dutch publications; detailed citation data on ISI journals and subfields; and a classification system of the main publishing organizations. Also gives an overview of the types of bibliometric indicators constructed. and discusses their relationship to indicators developed by other researchers in the field. Gives 2 applications to illustrate the potentials of the database and of the bibliometric indicators derived from it: one that represents a synthesis of 'classical' macro indicator studies on the one hand and bibliometric analyses of research groups on the other; and a second that gives for the first time a detailed analysis of a country's publications per institutional sector

0.013772773 = product of:
  0.06886386 = sum of:
    0.06886386 = weight(_text_:publishing in 4419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06886386 = score(doc=4419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 4419, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4419)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In two case studies of research units, reference values used to benchmark research performance appeared to show contradictory results: the average citation level in the subfields (FCSm) increased world-wide, while the citation level of the journals (JCSm) decreased, where concomitant changes were expected. Explanations were sought in: a shift in preference of document types; a change in publication preference for subfields; and changes in journal coverage. Publishing in newly covered journals with a low impact had a negative effect on impact ratios. However, the main factor behind the increase in FCSm was the distribution of articles across the five-year block periods that were studied. Publication in lower impact journals produced a lagging JCSm. Actual values of JCSm, FCSm, and citations per publication (CPP) values are not very informative either about research performance, or about the development of impact over time in a certain subfield with block indicators. Normalized citation impact indicators are free from such effects and should be consulted primarily in research performance assessments.

0.013772773 = product of:
  0.06886386 = sum of:
    0.06886386 = weight(_text_:publishing in 75) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06886386 = score(doc=75,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 75, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=75)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

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

0.013772773 = product of:
  0.06886386 = sum of:
    0.06886386 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06886386 = score(doc=1361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 1361, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1361)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Aging of publications, percentage of self-citations, and impact vary from journal to journal within fields of science. The assumption that citation and publication practices are homogenous within specialties and fields of science is invalid. Furthermore, the delineation of fields and among specialties is fuzzy. Institutional units of analysis and persons may move between fields or span different specialties. The match between the citation index and institutional profiles varies among institutional units and nations. The respective matches may heavily affect the representation of the units. Non-Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) journals are increasingly cornered into transdisciplinary Mode-2 functions with the exception of specialist journals publishing in languages other than English. An externally cited impact factor can be calculated for these journals. The citation impact of non-ISI journals will be demonstrated using Science and Public Policy as the example.

0.013336566 = product of:
  0.06668283 = sum of:
    0.06668283 = product of:
      0.13336566 = sum of:
        0.13336566 = weight(_text_:innovations in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13336566 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2958964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.45071742 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this article, we investigated the factors determining the capability of academic articles to be cited in the future using a topological analysis of citation networks. The basic idea is that articles that will have many citations were in a "similar" position topologically in the past. To validate this hypothesis, we investigated the correlation between future times cited and three measures of centrality: clustering centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality. We also analyzed the effect of aging as well as of self-correlation of times cited. Case studies were performed in the two following recent representative innovations: Gallium Nitride and Complex Networks. The results suggest that times cited is the main factor in explaining the near future times cited, and betweenness centrality is correlated with the distant future times cited. The effect of topological position on the capability to be cited is influenced by the migrating phenomenon in which the activated center of research shifts from an existing domain to a new emerging domain.

0.01147731 = product of:
  0.05738655 = sum of:
    0.05738655 = weight(_text_:publishing in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05738655 = score(doc=5184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 5184, 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=5184)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In one of two bibliometric papers in this issue Brown looks at formal publication and citation of Eprints as shown by the policies and practices of 37 top tier physics journals, and by citation trends in ISI's SciSearch database and Journal Citation Reports. Citation analysis was carried out if Eprint cites were indicated by editor response, instruction to authors sections, reports in the literature, or actual examination of citation lists. Total contribution to 12 archives and their citation counts in the journals were compiled. Of the 13 editors surveyed that responded, 8 published papers that had appeared in the archive. Two of these required removal from the archive at publication; two of the 13 did not publish papers that have appeared as Eprints. A review journal that solicits its contributions allowed citation of Eprints. Seven allowed citations to Eprints, but were less than enthusiastic.Nearly 36,000 citations were made to the 12 archives. Citations to the 37 journals and their impact factors remain constant over the period of 1991 to 1998. Eprint citations appear to peak about 3 years after appearance as do citations to published papers. Contribution to the archives, and their use as measured by citation, is clearly growing. Citation form and publishing policy varies from journal to journal.

0.01147731 = product of:
  0.05738655 = sum of:
    0.05738655 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05738655 = score(doc=1960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 1960, 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=1960)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.009434234 = product of:
  0.04717117 = sum of:
    0.04717117 = product of:
      0.09434234 = sum of:
        0.09434234 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09434234 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = 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

0.009434234 = product of:
  0.04717117 = sum of:
    0.04717117 = product of:
      0.09434234 = sum of:
        0.09434234 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09434234 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7. 2.2005 14:10:22

0.008338763 = product of:
  0.041693818 = sum of:
    0.041693818 = product of:
      0.083387636 = sum of:
        0.083387636 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083387636 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.0058963965 = product of:
  0.029481983 = sum of:
    0.029481983 = product of:
      0.058963966 = sum of:
        0.058963966 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058963966 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

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

0.0050032586 = product of:
  0.025016293 = sum of:
    0.025016293 = product of:
      0.050032586 = sum of:
        0.050032586 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050032586 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.004717117 = product of:
  0.023585586 = sum of:
    0.023585586 = product of:
      0.04717117 = sum of:
        0.04717117 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04717117 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22