Search (150 results, page 1 of 8)

0.03741874 = product of:
  0.22451244 = sum of:
    0.22451244 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22451244 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29960662 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03533926 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.

0.017587934 = product of:
  0.0527638 = sum of:
    0.038399857 = product of:
      0.07679971 = sum of:
        0.07679971 = weight(_text_:addresses in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07679971 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20233937 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.37955892 = fieldWeight in 3122, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0143639445 = product of:
      0.028727889 = sum of:
        0.028727889 = weight(_text_:22 in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028727889 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.123752065 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3122, 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=3122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The consistent finding that internationally coauthored papers are more heavily cited has led to a tacit agreement among politicians and scientists that international collaboration in scientific research should be particularly promoted. However, existing studies of research collaboration suffer from a major weakness in that the Thomson Reuters Web of Science until recently did not link author names with affiliation addresses. The general approach has been to hierarchically code papers into international paper, national paper, or local paper based on the address information. This hierarchical coding scheme severely understates the level and contribution of local or national collaboration on an internationally coauthored paper. In this research, I code collaboration variables by hand checking each paper in the sample, use two measures of a paper's impact, and try several regression models. I find that both international collaboration and local collaboration are positively and significantly associated with a paper's impact, but international collaboration does not have more epistemic authority than local collaboration. This result suggests that previous findings based on hierarchical coding might be misleading.

Date

26. 9.2009 11:22:05

0.013279914 = product of:
  0.07967948 = sum of:
    0.07967948 = product of:
      0.15935896 = sum of:
        0.15935896 = weight(_text_:essays in 2015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15935896 = score(doc=2015,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22576907 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.3886194 = idf(docFreq=201, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.7058494 = fieldWeight in 2015, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.3886194 = idf(docFreq=201, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2015)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.011925652 = product of:
  0.07155391 = sum of:
    0.07155391 = product of:
      0.14310782 = sum of:
        0.14310782 = weight(_text_:addresses in 2226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14310782 = score(doc=2226,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.20233937 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.70726633 = fieldWeight in 2226, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Whether one should use a public e-mail account (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo!) or an institutional one (e.g., @wsiz.rzeszow.pl, @medicine.ox.ac.uk) as an address for correspondence is an important aspect of scientific communication. Some authors consider that public e-mail services are unprofessional and insecure, whereas others say that, in a dynamically changing working environment, public e-mail addresses allow readers to contact authors long after they have changed their workplace. To shed light on this issue, we analyzed how often authors of scientific papers provided e-mail addresses that were either public or institution based. We selected from the Web of Science database 1,000 frequently cited and 1,000 infrequently cited articles (all of the latter were noncited articles) published in 2000, 2005, and 2010, and from these we analyzed 26,937 e-mail addresses. The results showed that approximately three fourths of these addresses were institutional, but there was an increasing trend toward using public e-mail addresses over the period studied. No significant differences were found between frequently and infrequently cited papers in this respect. Further research is now needed to access the motivations and perceptions of scholars when it comes to their use of either public or institutional e-mail accounts.

0.011435511 = product of:
  0.06861306 = sum of:
    0.06861306 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06861306 = score(doc=5766,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13927627 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03533926 = queryNorm
        0.49264002 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

How are library professionals who do research about bibliographic organization using electronic resources (e-resources) in their journal articles? Are they keeping pace with the use of e-resources outside the library world? What are the e-resources most used in their research? This article aims to address these and other questions by analyzing bibliographical references/notes in articles in Cataloging and Classification Quarterly (CCQ) for every other year from 1994 to 2004.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 42(2006) no.1, S.117-131

0.009322119 = product of:
  0.05593271 = sum of:
    0.05593271 = product of:
      0.11186542 = sum of:
        0.11186542 = weight(_text_:lectures in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11186542 = score(doc=382,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26750946 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.5697527 = idf(docFreq=61, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.4181737 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.5697527 = idf(docFreq=61, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Although there is some evidence that online videos are increasingly used by academics for informal scholarly communication and teaching, the extent to which they are used in published academic research is unknown. This article explores the extent to which YouTube videos are cited in academic publications and whether there are significant broad disciplinary differences in this practice. To investigate, we extracted the URL citations to YouTube videos from academic publications indexed by Scopus. A total of 1,808 Scopus publications cited at least one YouTube video, and there was a steady upward growth in citing online videos within scholarly publications from 2006 to 2011, with YouTube citations being most common within arts and humanities (0.3%) and the social sciences (0.2%). A content analysis of 551 YouTube videos cited by research articles indicated that in science (78%) and in medicine and health sciences (77%), over three fourths of the cited videos had either direct scientific (e.g., laboratory experiments) or scientific-related contents (e.g., academic lectures or education) whereas in the arts and humanities, about 80% of the YouTube videos had art, culture, or history themes, and in the social sciences, about 63% of the videos were related to news, politics, advertisements, and documentaries. This shows both the disciplinary differences and the wide variety of innovative research communication uses found for videos within the different subject areas.

0.009322119 = product of:
  0.05593271 = sum of:
    0.05593271 = product of:
      0.11186542 = sum of:
        0.11186542 = weight(_text_:lectures in 3384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11186542 = score(doc=3384,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26750946 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.5697527 = idf(docFreq=61, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.4181737 = fieldWeight in 3384, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.5697527 = idf(docFreq=61, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3384)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Series

Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services; 52

0.0092959395 = product of:
  0.055775635 = sum of:
    0.055775635 = product of:
      0.11155127 = sum of:
        0.11155127 = weight(_text_:essays in 1498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11155127 = score(doc=1498,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22576907 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.3886194 = idf(docFreq=201, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.49409455 = fieldWeight in 1498, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.3886194 = idf(docFreq=201, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1498)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad

0.009050934 = product of:
  0.0543056 = sum of:
    0.0543056 = product of:
      0.1086112 = sum of:
        0.1086112 = weight(_text_:addresses in 2035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1086112 = score(doc=2035,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20233937 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.5367774 = fieldWeight in 2035, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article provides the first historical analysis of the relationship between collaboration and scientific impact using three indicators of collaboration (number of authors, number of addresses, and number of countries) derived from articles published between 1900 and 2011. The results demonstrate that an increase in the number of authors leads to an increase in impact, from the beginning of the last century onward, and that this is not due simply to self-citations. A similar trend is also observed for the number of addresses and number of countries represented in the byline of an article. However, the constant inflation of collaboration since 1900 has resulted in diminishing citation returns: Larger and more diverse (in terms of institutional and country affiliation) teams are necessary to realize higher impact. The article concludes with a discussion of the potential causes of the impact gain in citations of collaborative papers.

0.008533301 = product of:
  0.051199805 = sum of:
    0.051199805 = product of:
      0.10239961 = sum of:
        0.10239961 = weight(_text_:addresses in 4129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10239961 = score(doc=4129,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20233937 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.50607854 = fieldWeight in 4129, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4129)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Leydesdorff, in his 1998 paper 'Theories of citation?', addresses the history of citations and citation analysis, and the transformation of a reference mechanism into a purportedly quantitative measure of research impact/quality. Examines different facets of citations and citation analysis, and discusses the validity of citation analysis as a useful measure of research impact/quality

0.007967949 = product of:
  0.04780769 = sum of:
    0.04780769 = product of:
      0.09561538 = sum of:
        0.09561538 = weight(_text_:essays in 1512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09561538 = score(doc=1512,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22576907 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.3886194 = idf(docFreq=201, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.42350963 = fieldWeight in 1512, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.3886194 = idf(docFreq=201, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1512)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad

0.0075424444 = product of:
  0.045254666 = sum of:
    0.045254666 = product of:
      0.09050933 = sum of:
        0.09050933 = weight(_text_:addresses in 6524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09050933 = score(doc=6524,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20233937 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.4473145 = fieldWeight in 6524, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6524)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Fields of technoscience like biotechnology develop in a network mode: disciplinary insights from different backgrounds are recombined as competing innovation systems are continuously reshaped. The ongoing process of integration at the European level generates an additional network of transnational collaborations. Using the title words of scientific publications in five core journals of biotechnology, multivariate analysis is used to distinguish between the intellectual organization of the publications in terms of title words and the institutional network in terms of addresses of documents. The interaction among the representation of intellectual space in terms of words and co-words, and the potentially European network system is compared with the document sets with American and Japanese addresses. The European system can also be decomposed in terms of the contributions of member states. Whereas a European vocabulary can be made visible at the global level, this communality disappears by this decomposition. The network effect at the European level can be considered as institutional more than cognitive

0.0075424444 = product of:
  0.045254666 = sum of:
    0.045254666 = product of:
      0.09050933 = sum of:
        0.09050933 = weight(_text_:addresses in 3603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09050933 = score(doc=3603,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20233937 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.4473145 = fieldWeight in 3603, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3603)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper addresses a bibliometric methodology to discover the structure of the scientific 'landscape' in order to gain detailed insight into the development of MD fields, their interaction, and the transfer of knowledge between them. This methodology is appropriate to visualize the position of MD activities in relation to interdisciplinary MD developments, and particularly in relation to socio-economic problems. Furthermore, it allows the identification of the major actors. It even provides the possibility of foresight. We describe a first approach to apply bibliometric mapping as an instrument to investigate characteristics of knowledge transfer. In this paper we discuss the creation of 'maps of science' with help of advanced bibliometric methods. This 'bibliometric cartography' can be seen as a specific type of data-mining, applied to large amounts of scientific publications. As an example we describe the mapping of the field neuroscience, one of the largest and fast growing fields in the life sciences. The number of publications covered by this database is about 80,000 per year, the period covered is 1995-1998. Current research is going an to update the mapping for the years 1999-2002. This paper addresses the main lines of the methodology and its application in the study of knowledge transfer.

0.0075424444 = product of:
  0.045254666 = sum of:
    0.045254666 = product of:
      0.09050933 = sum of:
        0.09050933 = weight(_text_:addresses in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09050933 = score(doc=4370,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20233937 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.4473145 = fieldWeight in 4370, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4370)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper proposes a methodology which discriminates the articles by the target authors ("true" articles) from those by other homonymous authors ("false" articles). Author name searches for 2,595 "source" authors in six subject fields retrieved about 629,000 articles. In order to extract true articles from the large amount of the retrieved articles, including many false ones, two filtering stages were applied. At the first stage any retrieved article was eliminated as false if either its affiliation addresses had little similarity to those of its source article or there was no citation relationship between the journal of the retrieved article and that of its source article. At the second stage, a sample of retrieved articles was subjected to manual judgment, and utilizing the judgment results, discrimination functions based on logistic regression were defined. These discrimination functions demonstrated both the recall ratio and the precision of about 95% and the accuracy (correct answer ratio) of 90-95%. Existence of common coauthor(s), address similarity, title words similarity, and interjournal citation relationships between the retrieved and source articles were found to be the effective discrimination predictors. Whether or not the source author was from a specific country was also one of the important predictors. Furthermore, it was shown that a retrieved article is almost certainly true if it was cited by, or cocited with, its source article. The method proposed in this study would be effective when dealing with a large number of articles whose subject fields and affiliation addresses vary widely.

0.0074666385 = product of:
  0.04479983 = sum of:
    0.04479983 = product of:
      0.08959966 = sum of:
        0.08959966 = weight(_text_:addresses in 2450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08959966 = score(doc=2450,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20233937 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.44281873 = fieldWeight in 2450, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2450)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Addresses the problem of evaluation of research work both by objective characterization, accessible to proof, and by adequate characterization, referring to the content and cognitive level of the work under investigation. A short discussion of established methods by science indicators as well as by peer review compiles merits and shortcomings of these methods. A short review refers to a few approaches towards the development of criteria for an improved assessment and characterization of research work and their shortcomings are discussed. Notably for the evaluation of medium or low range quality no reliable method is available. Therefore a systematic compilation of criteria which covers the full range of excellence to failure with respect to scientific quality is developed and a comprehensive list of criteris is presented which should provide a basis for objective and adequate characterization of publications

0.0070753614 = product of:
  0.042452168 = sum of:
    0.042452168 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042452168 = score(doc=5070,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13927627 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03533926 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

By analyzing the source documents and their references by classification systems researchers in the world, this paper presents core journals of the field during the period 1981-1990. The findings show that journal literature in this study confirms to Bradford's law and provides 'Cataloging and classification quarterly (CCQ)' as the most productive journbal, 'Library resources and technical services (LRTS)' as the most frequently cited journal of the field and 'Knowledge organization (KO)', formerly 'International classification (IC)' as the second productive and frequently cited journal of the field. The principal journals publishing source items differs from those used as reference sources of the field. The high-ranked international journals over the years are clearly those to be acquired to obtain the greatest coverage of the field for the least cost

0.006639957 = product of:
  0.03983974 = sum of:
    0.03983974 = product of:
      0.07967948 = sum of:
        0.07967948 = weight(_text_:essays in 1491) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07967948 = score(doc=1491,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22576907 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.3886194 = idf(docFreq=201, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.3529247 = fieldWeight in 1491, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.3886194 = idf(docFreq=201, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1491)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad

0.006399976 = product of:
  0.038399857 = sum of:
    0.038399857 = product of:
      0.07679971 = sum of:
        0.07679971 = weight(_text_:addresses in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07679971 = score(doc=329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20233937 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.37955892 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The collaborative pattern of all Nordic universities, as well as a few universities in the UK and the Netherlands, is analyzed using institutionally co-authored articles retrieved from Science Citation Index. The study shows that there are no major differences between universities of various size when it comes to the proportion of articles with internal, national, or international co-authorships. There are some country variations, but within each country, the differences among the universities are small, if any. When co-authorships were fractionalized according to the number of times a given university occurs among the addresses of an article, there were still no significant differences between universities of varying size. Since external collaboration, whether it is national or international, accounts for more than half of all articles produced by the universities, one is inclined to conclude that the universities function as a kind of cosmopolitan hotel housing nodes of scientific networks that are becoming increasingly international

0.006399976 = product of:
  0.038399857 = sum of:
    0.038399857 = product of:
      0.07679971 = sum of:
        0.07679971 = weight(_text_:addresses in 3360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07679971 = score(doc=3360,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20233937 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.37955892 = fieldWeight in 3360, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The number of physics and astronomy preprints (manuscripts intended for publication but circulated for peer comment prior to submission) available electronically has increased dramatically over the past 5 years and Internet accessible preprint Web servers at the Stanford Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC) and the Los Alamos National Laboratoty (LANL) provide unrestricted access to citations and full text of many of these papers long before they appear in print. Includes data for periodicals ranked by number of citations to preprints and electronic preprints (e-prints). Identifies the growing importance of e-prints in the published literature and addresses areas of concern regarding their future role in scientific communication, including: inclusion of e-prints in abstracting and indexing services; connecting electronic periodicals with e-prints; guidelines for withdrawal and revision of e-prints; and maintaining the integritiy of the e-print servers

0.006399976 = product of:
  0.038399857 = sum of:
    0.038399857 = product of:
      0.07679971 = sum of:
        0.07679971 = weight(_text_:addresses in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07679971 = score(doc=4587,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20233937 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03533926 = queryNorm
            0.37955892 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7256255 = idf(docFreq=391, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article addresses the question of whether the Web can serve as an information source for research. Specifically, it analyzes by way of content analysis the Web pages retrieved by the major search engines on a particular date (June 7, 1998), as a result of the query 'informetrics OR informetric'. In 807 out of the 942 retrieved pages, the search terms were mentioned in the context of information science. Over 70% of the pages contained only indirect information on the topic, in the form of hypertext links and bibliographical references without annotation. The bibliographical references extracted from the Web pages were analyzed, and lists of most productive authors, most cited authors, works, and sources were compiled. The list of reference obtained from the Web was also compared to data retrieved from commercial databases. For most cases, the list of references extracted from the Web outperformed the commercial, bibliographic databases. The results of these comparisons indicate that valuable, freely available data is hidden in the Web waiting to be extracted from the millions of Web pages