Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022609666 = product of:
  0.090438664 = sum of:
    0.090438664 = weight(_text_:media in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090438664 = score(doc=1263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.41399965 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The accrual of symbolic capital is an important aspect of academic life. Successful capital formation is commonly signified by the trappings of scholarly distinction or acknowledged status as a public intellectual. We consider and compare three potential indices of symbolic capital: citation counts, Web hits, and media mentions. Our Eindings, which are domain specific, suggest that public intellectuals are notable by their absence within the information studies community.

0.011058145 = product of:
  0.04423258 = sum of:
    0.04423258 = product of:
      0.08846516 = sum of:
        0.08846516 = weight(_text_:22 in 7192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08846516 = score(doc=7192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16332182 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2009 11:44:11

0.011058145 = product of:
  0.04423258 = sum of:
    0.04423258 = product of:
      0.08846516 = sum of:
        0.08846516 = weight(_text_:22 in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08846516 = score(doc=4347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16332182 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4347, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2013 16:18:36

0.00947841 = product of:
  0.03791364 = sum of:
    0.03791364 = product of:
      0.07582728 = sum of:
        0.07582728 = weight(_text_:22 in 7297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07582728 = score(doc=7297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16332182 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 7297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26. 4.2015 19:27:22

0.007898675 = product of:
  0.0315947 = sum of:
    0.0315947 = product of:
      0.0631894 = sum of:
        0.0631894 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0631894 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16332182 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, 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=2277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

31. 7.2001 20:22:57

0.0072646285 = product of:
  0.029058514 = sum of:
    0.029058514 = product of:
      0.05811703 = sum of:
        0.05811703 = weight(_text_:research in 5105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05811703 = score(doc=5105,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.43677214 = fieldWeight in 5105, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5105)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Formal and informal modes of collaboration in life sciences research were explored paratextually. The bylines and acknowledgments of more than 1,000 research articles in the journal Cell were analyzed to reveal the strength of collegiate ties and the importance of material and ideational trading between both individuals and labs. Intense coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration were shown to be defining features of contemporary research in the life sciences.

0.0070339455 = product of:
  0.028135782 = sum of:
    0.028135782 = product of:
      0.056271564 = sum of:
        0.056271564 = weight(_text_:research in 525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056271564 = score(doc=525,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.42290276 = fieldWeight in 525, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Research on bias in peer review examines scholarly communication and funding processes to assess the epistemic and social legitimacy of the mechanisms by which knowledge communities vet and self-regulate their work. Despite vocal concerns, a closer look at the empirical and methodological limitations of research on bias raises questions about the existence and extent of many hypothesized forms of bias. In addition, the notion of bias is predicated on an implicit ideal that, once articulated, raises questions about the normative implications of research on bias in peer review. This review provides a brief description of the function, history, and scope of peer review; articulates and critiques the conception of bias unifying research on bias in peer review; characterizes and examines the empirical, methodological, and normative claims of bias in peer review research; and assesses possible alternatives to the status quo. We close by identifying ways to expand conceptions and studies of bias to contend with the complexity of social interactions among actors involved directly and indirectly in peer review.

0.005931544 = product of:
  0.023726176 = sum of:
    0.023726176 = product of:
      0.047452353 = sum of:
        0.047452353 = weight(_text_:research in 4488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047452353 = score(doc=4488,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.35662293 = fieldWeight in 4488, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4488)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Data were gathered on acknowledgements in five leading information science journals for the years 1991-1999. The results were compared with data from two earlier studies of the same journals. Analysis of the aggregate data (1971-1999) confirms the general impression that acknowledgement has become an institutionalised element of the scholarly communication process, reflecting the growing cognitive and structural complexity of contemporary research.

0.004448658 = product of:
  0.017794631 = sum of:
    0.017794631 = product of:
      0.035589263 = sum of:
        0.035589263 = weight(_text_:research in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035589263 = score(doc=539,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Little research has been reported on how the Internet is being used to source corporate competitive intelligence. An exploratory study was conducted to explore current practice and future potential. A request for participants was posted to business-oriented listservs and Usenet newsgroups. Respondents were sent an open-ended survey which addressed three topics: a) the Internet as a source of competitive edge; b) ways in which the Internet could make their firm mor competitive, and c) security and other usage-related issues from the corporate perspective. Findings suggest that the Internet is being used as a tool for monitoring the external environment, locating distributed experts, engaging in informal know-how trading, and conducting market research. Respondents foresee greater use of the Internet in the context of the competitive intelligence function, and generally have few reservations about using the Internet

0.004448658 = product of:
  0.017794631 = sum of:
    0.017794631 = product of:
      0.035589263 = sum of:
        0.035589263 = weight(_text_:research in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035589263 = score(doc=1825,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions

0.004194235 = product of:
  0.01677694 = sum of:
    0.01677694 = product of:
      0.03355388 = sum of:
        0.03355388 = weight(_text_:research in 2265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03355388 = score(doc=2265,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 2265, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The twentieth century saw the progressive collectivization of science-dramatic growth in teamwork in general and large-scale collaboration in particular. Cognitive partnering in the conduct of research and scholarship has become commonplace, and this trend is reflected in rates of co-authorship and sub-authorship collaboration. The effects of these developments an academic writing are discussed and theorized in terms of distributed cognition.

0.004194235 = product of:
  0.01677694 = sum of:
    0.01677694 = product of:
      0.03355388 = sum of:
        0.03355388 = weight(_text_:research in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03355388 = score(doc=196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The authors apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. It is shown how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholar's research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.

0.0036699555 = product of:
  0.014679822 = sum of:
    0.014679822 = product of:
      0.029359644 = sum of:
        0.029359644 = weight(_text_:research in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029359644 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

New review of information and library research. 1(1995), S.23-37

0.0036699555 = product of:
  0.014679822 = sum of:
    0.014679822 = product of:
      0.029359644 = sum of:
        0.029359644 = weight(_text_:research in 2461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029359644 = score(doc=2461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 2461, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Scholars in major US research universities were surveyed to explore the normative bases of acknowledgement behaviour. Measures of agreement and divergence were established in respect of five issue sets pertaining to acknowledgement practice: expectations, etiquette, ethics, equity and evaluation. The results confirm the substantive role played by acknowledgements in the primary communication process. Although few formal rules exist, it is clear that many scholars subscribe to the idea of a governing etiquette. The findings also suggest that acknowledgement data could be mined to lay bare the rules of engagement that define the dynamics of collaboration and interdependence among scholars

0.0036699555 = product of:
  0.014679822 = sum of:
    0.014679822 = product of:
      0.029359644 = sum of:
        0.029359644 = weight(_text_:research in 5909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029359644 = score(doc=5909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 5909, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5909)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Classical assumptions about the nature and ethical entailments of authorship (the standard model) are being challenged by developments in scientific collaboration and multiple authorship. In the biomedical research community, multiple authorship has increased to such an extent that the trustworthiness of the scientific communication system has been called into question. Documented abuses, such as honorific authorship, have serious implications in terms of the acknowledgment of authority, allocation of credit, and assigning of accountability. Within the biomedical world it has been proposed that authors be replaced by lists of contributors (the radical model), whose specific inputs to a given study would be recorded unambiguously. The wider implications of the 'hyperauthorship' phenomenon for scholarly publication are considered

0.0036699555 = product of:
  0.014679822 = sum of:
    0.014679822 = product of:
      0.029359644 = sum of:
        0.029359644 = weight(_text_:research in 1731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029359644 = score(doc=1731,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 1731, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We chronicle the use of acknowledgments in 20th-century scholarship by analyzing and classifying more than 4,500 specimens covering a 100-year period. Our results show that the intensity of acknowledgment varies by discipline, reflecting differences in prevailing sociocognitive structures and work practices. We demonstrate that the acknowledgment has gradually established itself as a constitutive element of academic writing, one that provides a revealing insight into the nature and extent of subauthorship collaboration. Complementary data an rates of coauthorship are also presented to highlight the growing importance of collaboration and the increasing division of labor in contemporary research and scholarship.

0.0026213971 = product of:
  0.010485589 = sum of:
    0.010485589 = product of:
      0.020971177 = sum of:
        0.020971177 = weight(_text_:research in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020971177 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.

0.0026213971 = product of:
  0.010485589 = sum of:
    0.010485589 = product of:
      0.020971177 = sum of:
        0.020971177 = weight(_text_:research in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020971177 = score(doc=1285,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 1285, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Since its creation in 1991, arXiv has become central to the diffusion of research in a number of fields. Combining data from the entirety of arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS), this article investigates (a) the proportion of papers across all disciplines that are on arXiv and the proportion of arXiv papers that are in the WoS, (b) the elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication, and (c) the aging characteristics and scientific impact of arXiv e-prints and their published version. It shows that the proportion of WoS papers found on arXiv varies across the specialties of physics and mathematics, and that only a few specialties make extensive use of the repository. Elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication has shortened but remains longer in mathematics than in physics. In physics, mathematics, as well as in astronomy and astrophysics, arXiv versions are cited more promptly and decay faster than WoS papers. The arXiv versions of papers-both published and unpublished-have lower citation rates than published papers, although there is almost no difference in the impact of the arXiv versions of published and unpublished papers.