Search (198 results, page 1 of 10)

0.099397615 = product of:
  0.24849403 = sum of:
    0.22490844 = weight(_text_:publishing in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22490844 = score(doc=4654,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = 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)
    0.023585586 = product of:
      0.04717117 = sum of:
        0.04717117 = weight(_text_:22 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04717117 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.07362049 = product of:
  0.18405122 = sum of:
    0.06886386 = weight(_text_:publishing in 2232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06886386 = score(doc=2232,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 2232, 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=2232)
    0.11518735 = weight(_text_:technological in 2232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11518735 = score(doc=2232,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.49812943 = fieldWeight in 2232, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2232)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Intellectual and technological talents and skills are the driving force for scientific and industrial development, especially in our times characterized by a knowledgebased economy. Major events in society and related political decisions, however, can have a long-term effect an a country's scientific weIl-being. Although the Cultural Revolution took place from 1966 to 1976, its aftermath can still be felt. This is shown by this study of the production and productivity of Chinese scientists as a function of their age. Based an the 1995-2000 data from the Chinese Science Citation database (CSCD), this article investigates the year-by-year age distribution of scientific and technological personnel publishing in China. It is shown that the "Talent Fault" originating during the Cultural Revolution still exists, and that a new gap resulting from recent brain drain might be developing. The purpose of this work is to provide necessary information about the current situation and especially the existing problems of the S&T workforce in China.

0.055297386 = product of:
  0.27648693 = sum of:
    0.27648693 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27648693 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3689654 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = 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.

0.053150613 = product of:
  0.13287653 = sum of:
    0.11518735 = weight(_text_:technological in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11518735 = score(doc=1352,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.49812943 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
    0.017689189 = product of:
      0.035378378 = sum of:
        0.035378378 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035378378 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = 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)

Abstract

Patent analysis has become important for management as it offers timely and valuable information to evaluate R&D performance and identify the prospects of patents. This study explores the scattering patterns of patent impact based on citations in 3 distinct technological areas, the liquid crystal, semiconductor, and drug technological areas, to identify the core patents in each area. The research follows the approach from Bradford's law, which equally divides total citations into 3 zones. While the result suggests that the scattering of patent citations corresponded with features of Bradford's law, the proportion of patents in the 3 zones did not match the proportion as proposed by the law. As a result, the study shows that the distributions of citations in all 3 areas were more concentrated than what Bradford's law proposed. The Groos (1967) droop was also presented by the scattering of patent citations, and the growth rate of cumulative citation decreased in the third zone.

Date

22. 8.2014 17:11:29

0.052874107 = product of:
  0.13218527 = sum of:
    0.10859968 = weight(_text_:technological in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10859968 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.46964094 = fieldWeight in 4942, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4942)
    0.023585586 = product of:
      0.04717117 = sum of:
        0.04717117 = weight(_text_:22 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04717117 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = 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

0.04937753 = product of:
  0.12344383 = sum of:
    0.0678748 = weight(_text_:technological in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0678748 = score(doc=2696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
    0.055569027 = product of:
      0.11113805 = sum of:
        0.11113805 = weight(_text_:innovations in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11113805 = score(doc=2696,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2958964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.37559783 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

As an acceptable proxy for innovative activity, patents have become increasingly important in recent years. Patents and patent citations have been used for construction of technology indicators. This article presents an alternative to other citation-based indicators, i.e., the patent h-index, which is borrowed from bibliometrics. We conduct the analysis on a sample of the world's top 20 firms ranked by total patents granted in the period 1996-2005 from the Derwent Innovations Index in the semiconductor area. We also investigate the relationships between the patent h-index and other three indicators, i.e., patent counts, citation counts, and the mean family size (MFS). The findings show that the patent h-index is indeed an effective indicator for evaluating the technological importance and quality, or impact, for an assignee. In addition, the MFS indicator correlates negatively and not significantly with the patent h-index, which indicates that the social value of a patent is in disagreement with its private value. The two indicators, patent h-index and MFS, both provide an overview of the value of patents, but from two different angles.

0.04937753 = product of:
  0.12344383 = sum of:
    0.0678748 = weight(_text_:technological in 5390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0678748 = score(doc=5390,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 5390, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5390)
    0.055569027 = product of:
      0.11113805 = sum of:
        0.11113805 = weight(_text_:innovations in 5390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11113805 = score(doc=5390,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2958964 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.37559783 = fieldWeight in 5390, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7990475 = idf(docFreq=133, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5390)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Using information theory, we measure innovation systemness as synergy among size-classes, ZIP Codes, and technological classes (NACE-codes) for 8.5 million American companies. The synergy at the national level is decomposed at the level of states, Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSA), and Combined Statistical Areas (CSA). We zoom in to the state of California and in more detail to Silicon Valley. Our results do not support the assumption of a national system of innovations in the U.S.A. Innovation systems appear to operate at the level of the states; the CBSA are too small, so that systemness spills across their borders. Decomposition of the sample in terms of high-tech manufacturing (HTM), medium-high-tech manufacturing (MHTM), knowledge-intensive services (KIS), and high-tech services (HTKIS) does not change this pattern, but refines it. The East Coast-New Jersey, Boston, and New York-and California are the major players, with Texas a third one in the case of HTKIS. Chicago and industrial centers in the Midwest also contribute synergy. Within California, Los Angeles contributes synergy in the sectors of manufacturing, the San Francisco area in KIS. KIS in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area-a CSA composed of seven CBSA-spill over to other regions and even globally.

0.040391423 = product of:
  0.10097855 = sum of:
    0.08034117 = weight(_text_:publishing in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08034117 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.37785465 = fieldWeight in 547, 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=547)
    0.020637387 = product of:
      0.041274775 = sum of:
        0.041274775 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041274775 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, 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=547)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.

Date

6. 4.2022 19:22:26

0.03462122 = product of:
  0.08655305 = sum of:
    0.06886386 = weight(_text_:publishing in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06886386 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
    0.017689189 = product of:
      0.035378378 = sum of:
        0.035378378 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035378378 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:14

0.033046316 = product of:
  0.082615785 = sum of:
    0.0678748 = weight(_text_:technological in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0678748 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.29352558 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.014740991 = product of:
      0.029481983 = sum of:
        0.029481983 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029481983 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Predicting a researcher's knowledge trajectories beyond their current foci can leverage potential inter-/cross-/multi-disciplinary interactions to achieve exploratory innovation. In this study, we present a method of diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation. The method begins by constructing a heterogeneous bibliometric network consisting of a co-topic layer and a co-authorship layer. A novel link prediction approach with a diffusion strategy is then used to capture the interactions between social elements (e.g., collaboration) and knowledge elements (e.g., technological similarity) in the process of exploratory innovation. This diffusion strategy differentiates the interactions occurring among homogeneous and heterogeneous nodes in the heterogeneous bibliometric network and weights the strengths of these interactions. Two sets of experiments-one with a local dataset and the other with a global dataset-demonstrate that the proposed method is prior to 10 selected baselines in link prediction, recommender systems, and upstream graph representation learning. A case study recommending knowledge trajectories of information scientists with topical hierarchy and explainable mediators reveals the proposed method's reliability and potential practical uses in broad scenarios.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:07:12

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

0.032917526 = product of:
  0.16458763 = sum of:
    0.16458763 = weight(_text_:technological in 330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16458763 = score(doc=330,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.7117617 = fieldWeight in 330, 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=330)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Organizational ecology and social network theory are used to explain entries in technological communities. Using bibliometric data on 411 organizations in the field of plant biotechnology, we test several hypotheses that entry is not only influenced by the density of the field, but also by the structure of the R&D network within the community. The empirical findings point to the usefulness of bibliometric data in mapping change and evolution in technological communities, as well as to the effects of networking on entry behavior

0.032917526 = product of:
  0.16458763 = sum of:
    0.16458763 = weight(_text_:technological in 445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16458763 = score(doc=445,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.7117617 = fieldWeight in 445, 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=445)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Technology sectors differ in terms of technological complexity. When studying technology and innovation through patent analysis it is well known that similar amounts of technological knowledge can produce different numbers of patented innovation as output. A new multilayered approach to measure the technological value of patents based on ego patent citation networks (PCNs) is developed in this study. The results show that the structural indicators for the ego PCN developed in this contribution can characterize groups of patents and, hence, in an indirect way, the health of companies.

0.028851017 = product of:
  0.07212754 = sum of:
    0.05738655 = weight(_text_:publishing in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05738655 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
    0.014740991 = product of:
      0.029481983 = sum of:
        0.029481983 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029481983 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

0.028215025 = product of:
  0.14107512 = sum of:
    0.14107512 = weight(_text_:technological in 1472) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14107512 = score(doc=1472,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.6100815 = fieldWeight in 1472, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1472)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article examines the knowledge structure of the field of space communications using bibliometric mapping techniques based an textual analysis. A new approach with the aim of visualizing simultaneously the configuration of its scientific and technological knowledge bases is presented. This approach enabled us to overcome various limits of existing bibliometric methods dealing with science and technology relationships. The bibliometric map revealed weck cognitive interactions between science and technology at the worldwide level, although it brought out the systemic nature of the process of knowledge production at either side. We extended the mapping approach to the R&D activities of the Triad countries in order to characterize their specialization profiles and cognitive links an both sides in comparison with the structure of the field at the worldwide level. Results showed different patterns in the way the Triad countries organized their scientific and technological activities within the field.

0.027831001 = product of:
  0.139155 = sum of:
    0.139155 = weight(_text_:publishing in 2860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.139155 = score(doc=2860,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.023855144 = product of:
  0.11927572 = sum of:
    0.11927572 = weight(_text_:publishing in 4458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11927572 = score(doc=4458,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.023037469 = product of:
  0.11518735 = sum of:
    0.11518735 = weight(_text_:technological in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11518735 = score(doc=3764,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.49812943 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Patents sometimes cite webpages either as general background to the problem being addressed or to identify prior publications that limit the scope of the patent granted. Counts of the number of patents citing an organization's website may therefore provide an indicator of its technological capacity or relevance. This article introduces methods to extract URL citations from patents and evaluates the usefulness of counts of patent web citations as a technology indicator. An analysis of patents citing 200 US universities or 177 UK universities found computer science and engineering departments to be frequently cited, as well as research-related webpages, such as Wikipedia, YouTube, or the Internet Archive. Overall, however, patent URL citations seem to be frequent enough to be useful for ranking major US and the top few UK universities if popular hosted subdomains are filtered out, but the hit count estimates on the first search engine results page should not be relied upon for accuracy.

0.02301548 = product of:
  0.0575387 = sum of:
    0.048694104 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048694104 = score(doc=3809,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21262453 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = 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)
    0.0088445945 = product of:
      0.017689189 = sum of:
        0.017689189 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017689189 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15240058 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043520276 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.021719936 = product of:
  0.10859968 = sum of:
    0.10859968 = weight(_text_:technological in 6694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10859968 = score(doc=6694,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2312398 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043520276 = queryNorm
        0.46964094 = fieldWeight in 6694, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6694)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Considers 3 different types of bibliometrics, literature bibliometrics, patent bibliometrics and linkage bibliometrics which may be used to address questions of performance and results in government and national research. Stresses the importance of linkage bibliometrics, looking at citations between patents and scientific papers, its relevance to external criteria and to making clear the contribution on an institution or agency to a nation's technological progress