Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Leydesdorff, L."
  1. Bensman, S.J.; Leydesdorff, L.: Definition and identification of journals as bibliographic and subject entities : librarianship versus ISI Journal Citation Reports methods and their effect on citation measures (2009) 0.01
    0.0085600205 = product of:
      0.034240082 = sum of:
        0.034240082 = product of:
          0.068480164 = sum of:
            0.068480164 = weight(_text_:methods in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.068480164 = score(doc=2840,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.37691376 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    This paper explores the ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR) bibliographic and subject structures through Library of Congress (LC) and American research libraries cataloging and classification methodology. The 2006 Science Citation Index JCR Behavioral Sciences subject category journals are used as an example. From the library perspective, the main fault of the JCR bibliographic structure is that the JCR mistakenly identifies journal title segments as journal bibliographic entities, seriously affecting journal rankings by total cites and the impact factor. In respect to JCR subject structure, the title segment, which constitutes the JCR bibliographic basis, is posited as the best bibliographic entity for the citation measurement of journal subject relationships. Through factor analysis and other methods, the JCR subject categorization of journals is tested against their LC subject headings and classification. The finding is that JCR and library journal subject analyses corroborate, clarify, and correct each other.
  2. Leydesdorff, L.; Vaughan, L.: Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in information science : extending ACA to the Web environment (2006) 0.01
    0.0071333502 = product of:
      0.028533401 = sum of:
        0.028533401 = product of:
          0.057066802 = sum of:
            0.057066802 = weight(_text_:methods in 6113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.057066802 = score(doc=6113,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.31409478 = fieldWeight in 6113, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6113)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Co-occurrence matrices, such as cocitation, coword, and colink matrices, have been used widely in the information sciences. However, confusion and controversy have hindered the proper statistical analysis of these data. The underlying problem, in our opinion, involved understanding the nature of various types of matrices. This article discusses the difference between a symmetrical cocitation matrix and an asymmetrical citation matrix as well as the appropriate statistical techniques that can be applied to each of these matrices, respectively. Similarity measures (such as the Pearson correlation coefficient or the cosine) should not be applied to the symmetrical cocitation matrix but can be applied to the asymmetrical citation matrix to derive the proximity matrix. The argument is illustrated with examples. The study then extends the application of co-occurrence matrices to the Web environment, in which the nature of the available data and thus data collection methods are different from those of traditional databases such as the Science Citation Index. A set of data collected with the Google Scholar search engine is analyzed by using both the traditional methods of multivariate analysis and the new visualization software Pajek, which is based on social network analysis and graph theory.
  3. Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The university-industry knowledge relationship : analyzing patents and the science base of technologies (2004) 0.01
    0.0060528484 = product of:
      0.024211394 = sum of:
        0.024211394 = product of:
          0.048422787 = sum of:
            0.048422787 = weight(_text_:methods in 2887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048422787 = score(doc=2887,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 2887, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2887)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Via the Internet, information scientists can obtain costfree access to large databases in the "hidden" or "deep Web." These databases are often structured far more than the Internet domains themselves. The patent database of the U.S. Patent and Trade Office is used in this study to examine the science base of patents in terms of the literature references in these patents. Universitybased patents at the global level are compared with results when using the national economy of the Netherlands as a system of reference. Methods for accessing the online databases and for the visualization of the results are specified. The conclusion is that "biotechnology" has historically generated a model for theorizing about university-industry relations that cannot easily be generalized to other sectors and disciplines.
  4. Leydesdorff, L.; Bihui, J.: Mapping the Chinese Science Citation Database in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations (2005) 0.01
    0.0060528484 = product of:
      0.024211394 = sum of:
        0.024211394 = product of:
          0.048422787 = sum of:
            0.048422787 = weight(_text_:methods in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048422787 = score(doc=4813,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Methods developed for mapping the journal structure contained in aggregated journal-journal citations in the Science Citation Index (SCI; Thomson ISI, 2002) are applied to the Chinese Science Citation Database of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. This database covered 991 journals in 2001, of which only 37 originally had English titles; only 31 of which were covered by the SCI. Using factor-analytical and graph-analytical techniques, the authors show that the journal relations are dually structured. The main structure is the intellectual organization of the journals in journal groups (as in the international SCI), but the university-based journals provide an institutional layer that orients this structure towards practical ends (e.g., agriculture). This mechanism of integration is further distinguished from the role of general science journals. The Chinese Science Citation Database thus exhibits the characteristics of "Mode 2" or transdisciplinary science in the production of scientific knowledge more than its Western counterpart does. The contexts of application lead to correlation among the components.
  5. Leydesdorff, L.; Rafols, I.: Local emergence and global diffusion of research technologies : an exploration of patterns of network formation (2011) 0.01
    0.0060528484 = product of:
      0.024211394 = sum of:
        0.024211394 = product of:
          0.048422787 = sum of:
            0.048422787 = weight(_text_:methods in 4445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048422787 = score(doc=4445,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 4445, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4445)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Grasping the fruits of "emerging technologies" is an objective of many government priority programs in a knowledge-based and globalizing economy. We use the publication records (in the Science Citation Index) of two emerging technologies to study the mechanisms of diffusion in the case of two innovation trajectories: small interference RNA (siRNA) and nanocrystalline solar cells (NCSC). Methods for analyzing and visualizing geographical and cognitive diffusion are specified as indicators of different dynamics. Geographical diffusion is illustrated with overlays to Google Maps; cognitive diffusion is mapped using an overlay to a map based on the ISI subject categories. The evolving geographical networks show both preferential attachment and small-world characteristics. The strength of preferential attachment decreases over time while the network evolves into an oligopolistic control structure with small-world characteristics. The transition from disciplinary-oriented ("Mode 1") to transfer-oriented ("Mode 2") research is suggested as the crucial difference in explaining the different rates of diffusion between siRNA and NCSC.
  6. Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L.: Which cities produce more excellent papers than can be expected? : a new mapping approach, using Google Maps, based on statistical significance testing (2011) 0.01
    0.0060528484 = product of:
      0.024211394 = sum of:
        0.024211394 = product of:
          0.048422787 = sum of:
            0.048422787 = weight(_text_:methods in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048422787 = score(doc=4767,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The methods presented in this paper allow for a statistical analysis revealing centers of excellence around the world using programs that are freely available. Based on Web of Science data (a fee-based database), field-specific excellence can be identified in cities where highly cited papers were published more frequently than can be expected. Compared to the mapping approaches published hitherto, our approach is more analytically oriented by allowing the assessment of an observed number of excellent papers for a city against the expected number. Top performers in output are cities in which authors are located who publish a statistically significant higher number of highly cited papers than can be expected for these cities. As sample data for physics, chemistry, and psychology show, these cities do not necessarily have a high output of highly cited papers.
  7. Leydesdorff, L.; Radicchi, F.; Bornmann, L.; Castellano, C.; Nooy, W. de: Field-normalized impact factors (IFs) : a comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs (2013) 0.01
    0.0060528484 = product of:
      0.024211394 = sum of:
        0.024211394 = product of:
          0.048422787 = sum of:
            0.048422787 = weight(_text_:methods in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.048422787 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.
  8. Lucio-Arias, D.; Leydesdorff, L.: Main-path analysis and path-dependent transitions in HistCite(TM)-based historiograms (2008) 0.01
    0.0050440403 = product of:
      0.020176161 = sum of:
        0.020176161 = product of:
          0.040352322 = sum of:
            0.040352322 = weight(_text_:methods in 2373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040352322 = score(doc=2373,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18168657 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 2373, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2373)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    With the program HistCite(TM) it is possible to generate and visualize the most relevant papers in a set of documents retrieved from the Science Citation Index. Historical reconstructions of scientific developments can be represented chronologically as developments in networks of citation relations extracted from scientific literature. This study aims to go beyond the historical reconstruction of scientific knowledge, enriching the output of HistCiteTM with algorithms from social-network analysis and information theory. Using main-path analysis, it is possible to highlight the structural backbone in the development of a scientific field. The expected information value of the message can be used to indicate whether change in the distribution (of citations) has occurred to such an extent that a path-dependency is generated. This provides us with a measure of evolutionary change between subsequent documents. The forgetting and rewriting of historically prior events at the research front can thus be indicated. These three methods - HistCite, main path and path dependent transitions - are applied to a set of documents related to fullerenes and the fullerene-like structures known as nanotubes.
  9. Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The construction and globalization of the knowledge base in inter-human communication systems (2003) 0.00
    0.004592069 = product of:
      0.018368276 = sum of:
        0.018368276 = product of:
          0.03673655 = sum of:
            0.03673655 = weight(_text_:22 in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03673655 = score(doc=1621,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1621, 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=1621)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 5.2003 19:48:04
  10. Leydesdorff, L.: Can networks of journal-journal citations be used as indicators of change in the social sciences? (2003) 0.00
    0.004592069 = product of:
      0.018368276 = sum of:
        0.018368276 = product of:
          0.03673655 = sum of:
            0.03673655 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03673655 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    6.11.2005 19:02:22
  11. Leydesdorff, L.; Sun, Y.: National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan : university-industry-government versus international coauthorship relations (2009) 0.00
    0.004592069 = product of:
      0.018368276 = sum of:
        0.018368276 = product of:
          0.03673655 = sum of:
            0.03673655 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03673655 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2761, 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=2761)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:07:20
  12. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.00
    0.004592069 = product of:
      0.018368276 = sum of:
        0.018368276 = product of:
          0.03673655 = sum of:
            0.03673655 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03673655 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
  13. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011) 0.00
    0.0038267244 = product of:
      0.015306897 = sum of:
        0.015306897 = product of:
          0.030613795 = sum of:
            0.030613795 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030613795 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07
  14. Hellsten, I.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The construction of interdisciplinarity : the development of the knowledge base and programmatic focus of the journal Climatic Change, 1977-2013 (2016) 0.00
    0.0038267244 = product of:
      0.015306897 = sum of:
        0.015306897 = product of:
          0.030613795 = sum of:
            0.030613795 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030613795 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3089, 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=3089)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    24. 8.2016 17:53:22
  15. Leydesdorff, L.; Johnson, M.W.; Ivanova, I.: Toward a calculus of redundancy : signification, codification, and anticipation in cultural evolution (2018) 0.00
    0.0038267244 = product of:
      0.015306897 = sum of:
        0.015306897 = product of:
          0.030613795 = sum of:
            0.030613795 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030613795 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15825124 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045191016 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    29. 9.2018 11:22:09