Search (150 results, page 1 of 8)

0.064225666 = product of:
  0.16056415 = sum of:
    0.13729928 = weight(_text_:business in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13729928 = score(doc=5092,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21714608 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.63228995 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
    0.023264877 = product of:
      0.046529755 = sum of:
        0.046529755 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046529755 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1503283 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042928502 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5092, 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=5092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Presents a list of 53 periodicals in 22 subject fields which regularly provide bibliographies of theses, research in progress and patents in their particular subject field. The fields of business, economics, history and literature have most periodical listings of dissertations and theses. Also lists 63 periodicals in 25 sub-disciplines which provide rankings or ratings. Rankings and ratings information predominates in the fields of business, sports and games, finance and banking, and library and information science

0.054545473 = product of:
  0.27272737 = sum of:
    0.27272737 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27272737 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36394832 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = 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.

0.043070473 = product of:
  0.10767618 = sum of:
    0.09022752 = weight(_text_:great in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09022752 = score(doc=6389,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24172091 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 6389, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6389)
    0.017448656 = product of:
      0.034897313 = sum of:
        0.034897313 = weight(_text_:22 in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034897313 = score(doc=6389,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1503283 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042928502 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6389, 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=6389)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Examines the use of networked information sources in scholarly communication. Networked information sources are defined broadly to cover: documents and images stored on electronic network hosts; data files; newsgroups; listservs; online information services and electronic periodicals. Reports results of a survey to determine how heavily, if at all, networked information sources are cited in scholarly printed periodicals published in 1993 and 1994. 27 printed periodicals, representing a wide range of subjects and the most influential periodicals in their fields, were identified through the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index Journal Citation Reports. 97 articles were selected for further review and references, footnotes and bibliographies were checked for references to networked information sources. Only 2 articles were found to contain such references. Concludes that, although networked information sources facilitate scholars' work to a great extent during the research process, scholars have yet to incorporate such sources in the bibliographies of their published articles

Source

IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.3, S.240-245

0.03610504 = product of:
  0.0902626 = sum of:
    0.07281394 = weight(_text_:business in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07281394 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21714608 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.33532238 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
    0.017448656 = product of:
      0.034897313 = sum of:
        0.034897313 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034897313 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1503283 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042928502 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Scientists and managers using citation-based indicators to help evaluate research cannot evaluate recent articles because of the time needed for citations to accrue. Reading occurs before citing, however, and so it makes sense to count readers rather than citations for recent publications. To assess this, Mendeley readers and citations were obtained for articles from 2004 to late 2014 in five broad categories (agriculture, business, decision science, pharmacy, and the social sciences) and 50 subcategories. In these areas, citation counts tended to increase with every extra year since publication, and readership counts tended to increase faster initially but then stabilize after about 5 years. The correlation between citations and readers was also higher for longer time periods, stabilizing after about 5 years. Although there were substantial differences between broad fields and smaller differences between subfields, the results confirm the value of Mendeley reader counts as early scientific impact indicators.

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

0.03363132 = product of:
  0.16815661 = sum of:
    0.16815661 = weight(_text_:business in 2630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16815661 = score(doc=2630,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21714608 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.7743939 = fieldWeight in 2630, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2630)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We propose a new data source (Google Scholar) and metric (Hirsch's h-index) to assess journal impact in the field of economics and business. A systematic comparison between the Google Scholar h-index and the ISI Journal Impact Factor for a sample of 838 journals in economics and business shows that the former provides a more accurate and comprehensive measure of journal impact.

0.03008753 = product of:
  0.07521883 = sum of:
    0.06067828 = weight(_text_:business in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06067828 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21714608 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.2794353 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.014540548 = product of:
      0.029081097 = sum of:
        0.029081097 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029081097 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1503283 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042928502 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06

0.025223492 = product of:
  0.12611745 = sum of:
    0.12611745 = weight(_text_:business in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12611745 = score(doc=2741,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21714608 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.5807954 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper considers the use of the h-index as a measure of a journal's research quality and contribution. We study a sample of 455 journals in business and management all of which are included in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) and the Association of Business School's peer review journal ranking list. The h-index is compared with both the traditional impact factors, and with the peer review judgements. We also consider two sources of citation data - the WoS itself and Google Scholar. The conclusions are that the h-index is preferable to the impact factor for a variety of reasons, especially the selective coverage of the impact factor and the fact that it disadvantages journals that publish many papers. Google Scholar is also preferred to WoS as a data source. However, the paper notes that it is not sufficient to use any single metric to properly evaluate research achievements.

0.024060672 = product of:
  0.120303355 = sum of:
    0.120303355 = weight(_text_:great in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120303355 = score(doc=5129,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24172091 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.49769527 = fieldWeight in 5129, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5129)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

States that it can be shown that claims of a lack of theories of citation are also indicative of a great need for a theory which links science dynamics and measurement. There is a wide gap between qualitative (science dynamics) and quantitative (measurement) approaches. To link them, proposes the use of the citation system, that potentially bridges a gap between measurement and epistemology, by applying system theory to the publication system

0.021053089 = product of:
  0.10526544 = sum of:
    0.10526544 = weight(_text_:great in 3442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10526544 = score(doc=3442,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24172091 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 3442, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3442)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Thomson Reuters's Web of Science (WoS) began systematically collecting acknowledgment information in August 2008. Since then, bibliometric analysis of funding acknowledgment (FA) has been growing and has aroused intense interest and attention from both academia and policy makers. Examining the distribution of FA by citation index database, by language, and by acknowledgment type, we noted coverage limitations and potential biases in each analysis. We argue that despite its great value, bibliometric analysis of FA should be used with caution.

0.021019576 = product of:
  0.10509788 = sum of:
    0.10509788 = weight(_text_:business in 452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10509788 = score(doc=452,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21714608 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.4839962 = fieldWeight in 452, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=452)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Earlier studies found that web hyperlink data contain various types of information, ranging from academic to political, that can be used to analyze a variety of social phenomena. Specifically, the numbers of inlinks to academic websites are associated with academic performance, while the counts of inlinks to company websites correlate with business variables. However, the scarcity of sources from which to collect inlink data in recent years has required us to seek new data sources. The recent demise of the inlink search function of Yahoo! made this need more pressing. Different alternative variables or data sources have been proposed. This study compared three types of web data to determine which are better as academic and business quality estimates, and what are the relationships among the three data sources. The study found that Alexa inlink and Google URL citation data can replace Yahoo! inlink data and that the former is better than the latter. Alexa is even better than Yahoo!, which has been the main data source in recent years. The unique nature of Alexa data could explain its relative advantages over other data sources.

0.018045506 = product of:
  0.09022752 = sum of:
    0.09022752 = weight(_text_:great in 1753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09022752 = score(doc=1753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24172091 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 1753, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1753)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Multidimensional data analysis or On-line analytical processing (OLAP) offers a single subject-oriented source for analyzing summary data based an various dimensions. We demonstrate that the OLAP approach gives a promising starting point for advanced analysis and comparison among summary data in informetrics applications. At the moment there is no single precise, commonly accepted logical/conceptual model for multidimensional analysis. This is because the requirements of applications vary considerably. We develop a conceptual/logical multidimensional model for supporting the complex and unpredictable needs of informetrics. Summary data are considered with respect of some dimensions. By changing dimensions the user may construct other views an the same summary data. We develop a multidimensional query language whose basic idea is to support the definition of views in a way, which is natural and intuitive for lay users in the informetrics area. We show that this view-oriented query language has a great expressive power and its degree of declarativity is greater than in contemporary operation-oriented or SQL (Structured Query Language)-like OLAP query languages.

0.018045506 = product of:
  0.09022752 = sum of:
    0.09022752 = weight(_text_:great in 4210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09022752 = score(doc=4210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24172091 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 4210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4210)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The greatest number of open access journals (OAJs) is found in the sciences and their influence is growing. However, there are only a few studies on the acceptance and thereby integration of these OAJs in the scholarly communication system. Even fewer studies provide insight into the differences across disciplines. This study is an analysis of the citing behaviour in journals within three science fields: biology, mathematics, and pharmacy and pharmacology. It is a statistical analysis of OAJs as well as non-OAJs including both the citing and cited side of the journal to journal citations. The multivariate linear regression reveals many similarities in citing behaviour across fields and media. But it also points to great differences in the integration of OAJs. The integration of OAJs in the scholarly communication system varies considerably across fields. The implications for bibliometric research are discussed.

0.018045506 = product of:
  0.09022752 = sum of:
    0.09022752 = weight(_text_:great in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09022752 = score(doc=242,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24172091 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 242, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=242)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Characteristics of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology and 76 other journals listed in the InformationSystems category of the Journal Citation Reports-Science edition 2009 were analyzed. Besides reporting usual bibliographic indicators, we investigated the human cornerstone of any peer-reviewed journal: its editorial board. Demographic data about the 2,846 gatekeepers serving in information systems (IS) editorial boards were collected. We discuss various scientometric indicators supported by descriptive statistics. Our findings reflect the great variety of IS journals in terms of research output, author communities, editorial boards, and gatekeeper demographics (e.g., diversity in gender and location), seniority, authority, and degree of involvement in editorial boards. We believe that these results may help the general public and scholars (e.g., readers, authors, journal gatekeepers, policy makers) to revise and increase their knowledge of scholarly communication in the IS field. The EB_IS_2009 dataset supporting this scientometric study is released as online supplementary material to this article to foster further research on editorial boards.

0.018045506 = product of:
  0.09022752 = sum of:
    0.09022752 = weight(_text_:great in 4672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09022752 = score(doc=4672,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24172091 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 4672, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4672)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Twitter provides a channel of collecting and publishing instant information on major events like natural disasters. However, information flow on Twitter is of great volume. For a specific event, messages collected from the Twitter Stream based on either location constraint or predefined keywords would contain a lot of noise. In this article, we propose a method to achieve both high-precision and high-recall in collecting event-related tweets. Our method involves an automatic keyword generation component, and an event-related tweet identification component. For keyword generation, we consider three properties of candidate keywords, namely relevance, coverage, and evolvement. The keyword updating mechanism enables our method to track the main topics of tweets along event development. To minimize annotation effort in identifying event-related tweets, we adopt active learning and incorporate multiple-instance learning which assigns labels to bags instead of instances (that is, individual tweets). Through experiments on two real-world events, we demonstrate the superiority of our method against state-of-the-art alternatives.

0.01716241 = product of:
  0.085812055 = sum of:
    0.085812055 = weight(_text_:business in 4533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085812055 = score(doc=4533,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21714608 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.3951812 = fieldWeight in 4533, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4533)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - Link analysis is an established topic within webometrics. It normally uses counts of links between sets of web sites or to sets of web sites. These link counts are derived from web crawlers or commercial search engines with the latter being the only alternative for some investigations. This paper compares link counts with URL citation counts in order to assess whether the latter could be a replacement for the former if the major search engines withdraw their advanced hyperlink search facilities. Design/methodology/approach - URL citation counts are compared with link counts for a variety of data sets used in previous webometric studies. Findings - The results show a high degree of correlation between the two but with URL citations being much less numerous, at least outside academia and business. Research limitations/implications - The results cover a small selection of 15 case studies and so the findings are only indicative. Significant differences between results indicate that the difference between link counts and URL citation counts will vary between webometric studies. Practical implications - Should link searches be withdrawn, then link analyses of less well linked non-academic, non-commercial sites would be seriously weakened, although citations based on e-mail addresses could help to make citations more numerous than links for some business and academic contexts. Originality/value - This is the first systematic study of the difference between link counts and URL citation counts in a variety of contexts and it shows that there are significant differences between the two.

0.01716241 = product of:
  0.085812055 = sum of:
    0.085812055 = weight(_text_:business in 3057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085812055 = score(doc=3057,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21714608 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.3951812 = fieldWeight in 3057, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3057)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Interests of researchers who engage with research synthesis methods (RSM) intersect with library and information science (LIS) research and practice. This intersection is described by a summary of conceptualizations of research synthesis in a diverse set of research fields and in the context of Swanson's (1986) discussion of undiscovered public knowledge. Through a selective literature review, research topics that intersect with LIS and RSM are outlined. Topics identified include open access, information retrieval, bias and research information ethics, referencing practices, citation patterns, and data science. Subsequently, bibliometrics and topic modeling are used to present a systematic overview of the visibility of RSM in LIS. This analysis indicates that RSM became visible in LIS in the 1980s. Overall, LIS research has drawn substantially from general and internal medicine, the field's own literature, and business; and is drawn on by health and medical sciences, computing, and business. Through this analytical overview, it is confirmed that research synthesis is more visible in the health and medical literature in LIS; but suggests that, LIS, as a meta-science, has the potential to make substantive contributions to a broader variety of fields in the context of topics related to research synthesis methods.

0.01698992 = product of:
  0.0849496 = sum of:
    0.0849496 = weight(_text_:business in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0849496 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21714608 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.39120942 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.0583196 = idf(docFreq=763, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Publication in academic journals is a key criterion for appointment, tenure and promotion in universities. Many universities weigh publications according to the quality or impact of the journal. Traditionally, journal quality has been assessed through the ISI Journal Impact Factor (JIF). This paper proposes an alternative metric - Hirsch's h-index - and data source - Google Scholar - to assess journal impact. Using a systematic comparison between the Google Scholar h-index and the ISI JIF for a sample of 838 journals in Economics & Business, we argue that the former provides a more accurate and comprehensive measure of journal impact.

0.015037919 = product of:
  0.0751896 = sum of:
    0.0751896 = weight(_text_:great in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0751896 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24172091 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.

0.015037919 = product of:
  0.0751896 = sum of:
    0.0751896 = weight(_text_:great in 4338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0751896 = score(doc=4338,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24172091 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 4338, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4338)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A model is presented of the manifestation of the birth and development of a scientific specialty in a collection of journal papers. The proposed model, Cumulative Advantage by Paper with Exemplars (CAPE) is an adaptation of Price's cumulative advantage model (D. Price, 1976). Two modifications are made: (a) references are cited in groups by paper, and (b) the model accounts for the generation of highly cited exemplar references immediately after the birth of the specialty. This simple growth process mimics many characteristic features of real collections of papers, including the structure of the paper-to-reference matrix, the reference-per-paper distribution, the paper-per-reference distribution, the bibliographic coupling distribution, the cocitation distribution, the bibliographic coupling clustering coefficient distribution, and the temporal distribution of exemplar references. The model yields a great deal of insight into the process that produces the connectedness and clustering of a collection of articles and references. Two examples are presented and successfully modeled: a collection of 131 articles an MEMS RF (microelectromechnical systems radio frequency) switches, and a collection of 901 articles an the subject of complex networks.

0.015037919 = product of:
  0.0751896 = sum of:
    0.0751896 = weight(_text_:great in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0751896 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24172091 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042928502 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=656)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper offers a practical insight into the application of Lotka's law of author productivity to the question of how likely it is that an author will return to a particular publisher (rather than make another contribution to a subject literature, which is its usual application). The question of author loyalty, especially repeat visits, is one which is of great interest to publishers. Design/methodology/approach - This paper shows, possibly for the first time, that the author productivity distribution predicted by Lotka's law for subject literatures also holds for publisher aggregates, in this case, all Emerald authors. Findings - The ideas presented here are speculative and programmatic: they raise questions and provide a robust intellectual framework for further research into the determinants of author loyalty, as seen from the publisher side. Practical implications - The implications for commissioning editors and marketing departments in journal publishing houses are that repeat visiting authors are indeed scarce commodities, not necessarily because of barriers put in their way by publishers, but because research production is very asymmetrically skewed in favour of a small productive élite. Originality/value - By analysing survey data it should be possible, within very broad parameters, to identify clusters of say high, medium and low research activity authors. This would provide insight into potential "hot spots" of future publishing intent and, in the case of dense and overworked research areas, early warning as to when to start looking elsewhere for future articles.