-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.03
0.0277539 = product of:
0.0555078 = sum of:
0.0555078 = product of:
0.1110156 = sum of:
0.1110156 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1110156 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.02
0.024531214 = product of:
0.049062427 = sum of:
0.049062427 = product of:
0.098124854 = sum of:
0.098124854 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098124854 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
-
Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005)
0.02
0.020815425 = product of:
0.04163085 = sum of:
0.04163085 = product of:
0.0832617 = sum of:
0.0832617 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0832617 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, 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=4890)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2007 17:02:22
-
Torvik, V.I.; Weeber, M.; Swanson, D.R.; Smalheiser, N.R.: ¬A probabilistic similarity metric for medline mecords : a model for author name disambiguation (2005)
0.02
0.019963596 = product of:
0.039927192 = sum of:
0.039927192 = product of:
0.079854384 = sum of:
0.079854384 = weight(_text_:headings in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.079854384 = score(doc=3308,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We present a model for estimating the probability that a pair of author names (sharing last name and first initial), appearing an two different Medline articles, refer to the same individual. The model uses a simple yet powerful similarity profile between a pair of articles, based an title, journal name, coauthor names, medical subject headings (MeSH), language, affiliation, and name attributes (prevalence in the literature, middle initial, and suffix). The similarity profile distribution is computed from reference sets consisting of pairs of articles containing almost exclusively author matches versus nonmatches, generated in an unbiased manner. Although the match set is generated automatically and might contain a small proportion of nonmatches, the model is quite robust against contamination with nonmatches. We have created a free, public service ("Author-ity": http://arrowsmith.psych.uic.edu) that takes as input an author's name given an a specific article, and gives as output a list of all articles with that (last name, first initial) ranked by decreasing similarity, with match probability indicated.
-
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)
0.02
0.019963596 = product of:
0.039927192 = sum of:
0.039927192 = product of:
0.079854384 = sum of:
0.079854384 = weight(_text_:headings in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.079854384 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
-
Raan, A.F.J. van: Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators : research group indicator distributions and correlations (2006)
0.01
0.014718729 = product of:
0.029437458 = sum of:
0.029437458 = product of:
0.058874916 = sum of:
0.058874916 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058874916 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5275)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 16:20:22
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.01
0.014718729 = product of:
0.029437458 = sum of:
0.029437458 = product of:
0.058874916 = sum of:
0.058874916 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058874916 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:22:35
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.01
0.01387695 = product of:
0.0277539 = sum of:
0.0277539 = product of:
0.0555078 = sum of:
0.0555078 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0555078 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
-
Rostaing, H.; Barts, N.; Léveillé, V.: Bibliometrics: representation instrument of the multidisciplinary positioning of a scientific area : Implementation for an Advisory Scientific Committee (2007)
0.01
0.01387695 = product of:
0.0277539 = sum of:
0.0277539 = product of:
0.0555078 = sum of:
0.0555078 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0555078 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, 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=1144)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 30.12.2007 11:22:39
-
Neuhaus, C.; Marx, W.; Daniel, H.-W.: ¬The publication and citation impact profiles of Angewandte Chemie and the Journal of the American Chemical Society based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts : a case study on the limitations of the Journal Impact Factor (2009)
0.01
0.013309063 = product of:
0.026618127 = sum of:
0.026618127 = product of:
0.053236254 = sum of:
0.053236254 = weight(_text_:headings in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053236254 = score(doc=2707,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24837378 = queryWeight, product of:
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.21433927 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) published by Thomson Reuters is often used to evaluate the significance and performance of scientific journals. Besides methodological problems with the JIF, the critical issue is whether a single measure is sufficient for characterizing the impact of journals, particularly the impact of multidisciplinary and wide-scope journals that publish articles in a broad range of research fields. Taking Angewandte Chemie International Edition and the Journal of the American Chemical Society as examples, we examined the two journals' publication and impact profiles across the sections of Chemical Abstracts and compared the results with the JIF. The analysis was based primarily on Communications published in Angewandte Chemie International Edition and the Journal of the American Chemical Society during 2001 to 2005. The findings show that the information available in the Science Citation Index is a rather unreliable indication of the document type and is therefore inappropriate for comparative analysis. The findings further suggest that the composition of the journal in terms of contribution types, the length of the citation window, and the thematic focus of the journal in terms of the sections of Chemical Abstracts has a significant influence on the overall journal citation impact. Therefore, a single measure of journal citation impact such as the JIF is insufficient for characterizing the significance and performance of wide-scope journals. For the comparison of journals, more sophisticated methods such as publication and impact profiles across subject headings of bibliographic databases (e.g., the sections of Chemical Abstracts) are valuable.
-
Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009)
0.01
0.012265607 = product of:
0.024531214 = sum of:
0.024531214 = product of:
0.049062427 = sum of:
0.049062427 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049062427 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 12:43:51
-
Burrell, Q.L.: Predicting future citation behavior (2003)
0.01
0.012142331 = product of:
0.024284663 = sum of:
0.024284663 = product of:
0.048569325 = sum of:
0.048569325 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048569325 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 29. 3.2003 19:22:48
-
Leydesdorff, L.: Can networks of journal-journal citations be used as indicators of change in the social sciences? (2003)
0.01
0.010407712 = product of:
0.020815425 = sum of:
0.020815425 = product of:
0.04163085 = sum of:
0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04163085 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 6.11.2005 19:02:22
-
Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006)
0.01
0.010407712 = product of:
0.020815425 = sum of:
0.020815425 = product of:
0.04163085 = sum of:
0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04163085 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:26:24
-
Haycock, L.A.: Citation analysis of education dissertations for collection development (2004)
0.01
0.010407712 = product of:
0.020815425 = sum of:
0.020815425 = product of:
0.04163085 = sum of:
0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04163085 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, 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=135)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006)
0.01
0.010407712 = product of:
0.020815425 = sum of:
0.020815425 = product of:
0.04163085 = sum of:
0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04163085 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 3. 1.2007 17:22:03
-
H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008)
0.01
0.010407712 = product of:
0.020815425 = sum of:
0.020815425 = product of:
0.04163085 = sum of:
0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04163085 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 6. 4.2008 19:04:22
-
Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006)
0.01
0.010407712 = product of:
0.020815425 = sum of:
0.020815425 = product of:
0.04163085 = sum of:
0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04163085 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 26.12.2007 19:22:05
-
Althouse, B.M.; West, J.D.; Bergstrom, C.T.; Bergstrom, T.: Differences in impact factor across fields and over time (2009)
0.01
0.010407712 = product of:
0.020815425 = sum of:
0.020815425 = product of:
0.04163085 = sum of:
0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04163085 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2695, 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=2695)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 23. 2.2009 18:22:28
-
Zhang, Y.; Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.: Identification of factors predicting clickthrough in Web searching using neural network analysis (2009)
0.01
0.010407712 = product of:
0.020815425 = sum of:
0.020815425 = product of:
0.04163085 = sum of:
0.04163085 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04163085 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17933457 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051211677 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 17:49:11
