Search (87 results, page 1 of 5)

0.051000178 = product of:
  0.1147504 = sum of:
    0.025715325 = product of:
      0.05143065 = sum of:
        0.05143065 = weight(_text_:headings in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05143065 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
    0.026182763 = weight(_text_:library in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026182763 = score(doc=2840,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
    0.01309673 = weight(_text_:of in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01309673 = score(doc=2840,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
    0.049755584 = weight(_text_:congress in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049755584 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.31622988 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.6, S.1097-1117

0.020788645 = product of:
  0.062365934 = sum of:
    0.017815111 = weight(_text_:library in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017815111 = score(doc=4919,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
    0.017822394 = weight(_text_:of in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017822394 = score(doc=4919,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
    0.026728429 = product of:
      0.053456858 = sum of:
        0.053456858 = weight(_text_:etc in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053456858 = score(doc=4919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17865302 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

In bibliometrics, the association of "impact" with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves therefore should be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology differ by a factor of 2 in terms of their respective impact factors (IF), but the journal with the lower IF has the higher impact. Using percentile ranks (e.g., top-1%, top-10%, etc.), an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be based on integration of the citation curves, but after normalization of the citation curves to the same scale. The results across document sets can be compared as percentages of the total impact of a reference set. Total number of citations, however, should not be used instead because the shape of the citation curves is then not appreciated. I3 can be applied to any document set and any citation window. The results of the integration (summation) are fully decomposable in terms of journals or institutional units such as nations, universities, and so on because percentile ranks are determined at the paper level. In this study, we first compare I3 with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories ("Information Science & Library Science" and "Multidisciplinary Sciences"). The library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations. Policy implications of this possible paradigm shift in citation impact analysis are specified.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2133-2146

0.012197453 = product of:
  0.054888535 = sum of:
    0.036366962 = product of:
      0.072733924 = sum of:
        0.072733924 = weight(_text_:headings in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072733924 = score(doc=943,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.45468226 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.018521573 = weight(_text_:of in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018521573 = score(doc=943,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Citation analysis of documents retrieved from the Medline database (at the Web of Knowledge) has been possible only on a case-by-case basis. A technique is presented here for citation analysis in batch mode using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) at the Web of Knowledge and the Science Citation Index at the Web of Science (WoS). This freeware routine is applied to the case of "Brugada Syndrome," a specific disease and field of research (since 1992). The journals containing these publications, for example, are attributed to WoS categories other than "cardiac and cardiovascular systems", perhaps because of the possibility of genetic testing for this syndrome in the clinic. With this routine, all the instruments available for citation analysis can now be used on the basis of MeSH terms. Other options for crossing between Medline, WoS, and Scopus are also reviewed.

Object

Web of Knowledge

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1076-1080

0.011646026 = product of:
  0.052407116 = sum of:
    0.036366962 = product of:
      0.072733924 = sum of:
        0.072733924 = weight(_text_:headings in 494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072733924 = score(doc=494,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.45468226 = fieldWeight in 494, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.016040152 = weight(_text_:of in 494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016040152 = score(doc=494,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 494, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=494)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Multiple perspectives on the nonlinear processes of medical innovations can be distinguished and combined using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) of the MEDLINE database. Focusing on three main branches-"diseases," "drugs and chemicals," and "techniques and equipment"-we use base maps and overlay techniques to investigate the translations and interactions and thus to gain a bibliometric perspective on the dynamics of medical innovations. To this end, we first analyze the MEDLINE database, the MeSH index tree, and the various options for a static mapping from different perspectives and at different levels of aggregation. Following a specific innovation (RNA interference) over time, the notion of a trajectory which leaves a signature in the database is elaborated. Can the detailed index terms describing the dynamics of research be used to predict the diffusion dynamics of research results? Possibilities are specified for further integration between the MEDLINE database on one hand, and the Science Citation Index and Scopus (containing citation information) on the other.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.11, S.2239-2253

0.00996906 = product of:
  0.04486077 = sum of:
    0.018521573 = weight(_text_:of in 4107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018521573 = score(doc=4107,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4107, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4107)
    0.026339196 = product of:
      0.05267839 = sum of:
        0.05267839 = weight(_text_:problems in 4107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05267839 = score(doc=4107,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.3869508 = fieldWeight in 4107, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Impact factors (and similar measures such as the Scimago Journal Rankings) suffer from two problems: (a) citation behavior varies among fields of science and, therefore, leads to systematic differences, and (b) there are no statistics to inform us whether differences are significant. The recently introduced "source normalized impact per paper" indicator of Scopus tries to remedy the first of these two problems, but a number of normalization decisions are involved, which makes it impossible to test for significance. Using fractional counting of citations-based on the assumption that impact is proportionate to the number of references in the citing documents-citations can be contextualized at the paper level and aggregated impacts of sets can be tested for their significance. It can be shown that the weighted impact of Annals of Mathematics (0.247) is not so much lower than that of Molecular Cell (0.386) despite a five-f old difference between their impact factors (2.793 and 13.156, respectively).

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.11, S.2365-2369

0.009830422 = product of:
  0.0442369 = sum of:
    0.025715325 = product of:
      0.05143065 = sum of:
        0.05143065 = weight(_text_:headings in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05143065 = score(doc=2224,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 2224, 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=2224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.018521573 = weight(_text_:of in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018521573 = score(doc=2224,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 2224, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2224)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

We present a novel routine, namely medlineR, based on the R language, that allows the user to match data from Medline/PubMed with records indexed in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) database. The matching allows exploiting the rich and controlled vocabulary of medical subject headings (MeSH) of Medline/PubMed with additional fields of WoS. The integration provides data (e.g., citation data, list of cited reference, list of the addresses of authors' host organizations, WoS subject categories) to perform a variety of scientometric analyses. This brief communication describes medlineR, the method on which it relies, and the steps the user should follow to perform the matching across the two databases. To demonstrate the differences from Leydesdorff and Opthof (Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1076-1080), we conclude this artcle by testing the routine on the MeSH category "Burgada syndrome."

Object

Web of Science

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.10, S.2155-2159

0.009644389 = product of:
  0.04339975 = sum of:
    0.016671322 = weight(_text_:of in 1241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016671322 = score(doc=1241,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 1241, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1241)
    0.026728429 = product of:
      0.053456858 = sum of:
        0.053456858 = weight(_text_:etc in 1241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053456858 = score(doc=1241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17865302 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 1241, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1241)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) is applied to the citation curves of articles in six journals and to all citable items in a single field of science (virology, 24 journals) to distinguish among the developmental trajectories in subpopulations. Can citation patterns of highly-cited papers be distinguished in an early phase as "fast-breaking" papers? Can "late bloomers" or "sleeping beauties" be identified? Most interesting, we find differences between "sticky knowledge claims" that continue to be cited more than 10 years after publication and "transient knowledge claims" that show a decay pattern after reaching a peak within a few years. Only papers following the trajectory of a "sticky knowledge claim" can be expected to have a sustained impact. These findings raise questions about indicators of "excellence" that use aggregated citation rates after 2 or 3 years (e.g., impact factors). Because aggregated citation curves can also be composites of the two patterns, fifth-order polynomials (with four bending points) are needed to capture citation curves precisely. For the journals under study, the most frequently cited groups were furthermore much smaller than 10%. Although GBTM has proved a useful method for investigating differences among citation trajectories, the methodology does not allow us to define a percentage of highly cited papers inductively across different fields and journals. Using multinomial logistic regression, we conclude that predictor variables such as journal names, number of authors, etc., do not affect the stickiness of knowledge claims in terms of citations but only the levels of aggregated citations (which are field-specific).

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.797-811

0.009509627 = product of:
  0.04279332 = sum of:
    0.016064888 = weight(_text_:of in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016064888 = score(doc=532,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
    0.026728429 = product of:
      0.053456858 = sum of:
        0.053456858 = weight(_text_:etc in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053456858 = score(doc=532,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17865302 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Using the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index 2010 (N = 3,705 journals), we study the (combined) effects of (a) fractional counting on the impact factor (IF) and (b) transformation of the skewed citation distributions into a distribution of 100 percentiles and six percentile rank classes (top-1%, top-5%, etc.). Do these approaches lead to field-normalized impact measures for journals? In addition to the 2-year IF (IF2), we consider the 5-year IF (IF5), the respective numerators of these IFs, and the number of Total Cites, counted both as integers and fractionally. These various indicators are tested against the hypothesis that the classification of journals into 11 broad fields by PatentBoard/NSF (National Science Foundation) provides statistically significant between-field effects. Using fractional counting the between-field variance is reduced by 91.7% in the case of IF5, and by 79.2% in the case of IF2. However, the differences in citation counts are not significantly affected by fractional counting. These results accord with previous studies, but the longer citation window of a fractionally counted IF5 can lead to significant improvement in the normalization across fields.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.1, S.96-107

0.008315175 = product of:
  0.037418287 = sum of:
    0.021378135 = weight(_text_:library in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021378135 = score(doc=2779,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
    0.016040152 = weight(_text_:of in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016040152 = score(doc=2779,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.

Aid

Web of Science

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.707-714

0.008079485 = product of:
  0.036357682 = sum of:
    0.017733058 = weight(_text_:of in 3704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017733058 = score(doc=3704,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 3704, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3704)
    0.018624624 = product of:
      0.03724925 = sum of:
        0.03724925 = weight(_text_:problems in 3704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03724925 = score(doc=3704,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 3704, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3704)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Using Google Earth, Google Maps, and/or network visualization programs such as Pajek, one can overlay the network of relations among addresses in scientific publications onto the geographic map. The authors discuss the pros and cons of various options, and provide software (freeware) for bridging existing gaps between the Science Citation Indices (Thomson Reuters) and Scopus (Elsevier), on the one hand, and these various visualization tools on the other. At the level of city names, the global map can be drawn reliably on the basis of the available address information. At the level of the names of organizations and institutes, there are problems of unification both in the ISI databases and with Scopus. Pajek enables a combination of visualization and statistical analysis, whereas the Google Maps and its derivatives provide superior tools on the Internet.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.8, S.1622-1634

0.0070950803 = product of:
  0.03192786 = sum of:
    0.018521573 = weight(_text_:of in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018521573 = score(doc=4460,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
    0.013406289 = product of:
      0.026812578 = sum of:
        0.026812578 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026812578 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Aggregated journal-journal citations can be used for mapping the intellectual organization of the sciences in terms of specialties because the latter can be considered as interreading communities. Can the journal-journal citations also be used as early indicators of change by comparing the files for two subsequent years? Probabilistic entropy measures enable us to analyze changes in large datasets at different levels of aggregation and in considerable detail. Compares Journal Citation Reports of the Social Science Citation Index for 1999 with similar data for 1998 and analyzes the differences using these measures. Compares the various indicators with similar developments in the Science Citation Index. Specialty formation seems a more important mechanism in the development of the social sciences than in the natural and life sciences, but the developments in the social sciences are volatile. The use of aggregate statistics based on the Science Citation Index is ill-advised in the case of the social sciences because of structural differences in the underlying dynamics.

Date

6.11.2005 19:02:22

Source

Journal of documentation. 59(2003) no.1, S.84-104

0.0069293124 = product of:
  0.031181905 = sum of:
    0.017815111 = weight(_text_:library in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017815111 = score(doc=3231,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.013366793 = weight(_text_:of in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013366793 = score(doc=3231,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3095-3100

0.0067364657 = product of:
  0.030314095 = sum of:
    0.016907806 = weight(_text_:of in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016907806 = score(doc=1621,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1621, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1621)
    0.013406289 = product of:
      0.026812578 = sum of:
        0.026812578 = weight(_text_:22 in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026812578 = score(doc=1621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The relationship between the "knowledge base" and the "globalization" of communication systems is discussed from the perspective of communication theory. I argue that inter-human communication takes place at two levels. At the first level information is exchanged and provided with meaning and at the second level meaning can reflexively be communicated. Human language can be considered as the evolutionary achievement which enables us to use these two channels of communication simultaneously. Providing meaning with hindsight is a recursive operation: a meaning that makes a difference can be considered as knowledge. If the production of knowledge is socially organized, the perspective of hindsight can further be codified. This adds globalization to the historically stabilized patterns of communications. Globalization can be expected to transform the communications in an evolutionary mode. However, the self-organization of a knowledge-based society remains an expectation with the status of a hypothesis.

Date

22. 5.2003 19:48:04

Source

Canadian Journal of Communication 28(2003), H.3, S. -

0.0067364657 = product of:
  0.030314095 = sum of:
    0.016907806 = weight(_text_:of in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016907806 = score(doc=4681,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
    0.013406289 = product of:
      0.026812578 = sum of:
        0.026812578 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026812578 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.

Date

8. 1.2019 18:22:45

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.198-201

0.006683425 = product of:
  0.030075412 = sum of:
    0.018903503 = weight(_text_:of in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018903503 = score(doc=4463,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.36650562 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
    0.011171908 = product of:
      0.022343816 = sum of:
        0.022343816 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022343816 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This article considers the relationships among meaning generation, selection, and the dynamics of discourse from a variety of perspectives ranging from information theory and biology to sociology. Following Husserl's idea of a horizon of meanings in intersubjective communication, we propose a way in which, using Shannon's equations, the generation and selection of meanings from a horizon of possibilities can be considered probabilistically. The information-theoretical dynamics we articulate considers a process of meaning generation within cultural evolution: information is imbued with meaning, and through this process, the number of options for the selection of meaning in discourse proliferates. The redundancy of possible meanings contributes to a codification of expectations within the discourse. Unlike hardwired DNA, the codes of nonbiological systems can coevolve with the variations. Spanning horizons of meaning, the codes structure the communications as selection environments that shape discourses. Discursive knowledge can be considered as meta-coded communication that enables us to translate among differently coded communications. The dynamics of discursive knowledge production can thus infuse the historical dynamics with a cultural evolution by adding options, that is, by increasing redundancy. A calculus of redundancy is presented as an indicator whereby these dynamics of discourse and meaning may be explored empirically.

Date

29. 9.2018 11:22:09

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.10, S.1181-1192

0.0065650693 = product of:
  0.029542811 = sum of:
    0.018370902 = weight(_text_:of in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018370902 = score(doc=4186,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
    0.011171908 = product of:
      0.022343816 = sum of:
        0.022343816 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022343816 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.

Date

22. 1.2011 12:51:07

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.217-229

0.0065028244 = product of:
  0.02926271 = sum of:
    0.015116624 = weight(_text_:library in 3987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015116624 = score(doc=3987,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 3987, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3987)
    0.014146087 = weight(_text_:of in 3987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014146087 = score(doc=3987,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 3987, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3987)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

We present a novel approach to visually locate bodies of research within the sciences, both at each moment of time and dynamically. This article describes how this approach fits with other efforts to locally and globally map scientific outputs. We then show how these science overlay maps help benchmarking, explore collaborations, and track temporal changes, using examples of universities, corporations, funding agencies, and research topics. We address their conditions of application and discuss advantages, downsides, and limitations. Overlay maps especially help investigate the increasing number of scientific developments and organizations that do not fit within traditional disciplinary categories. We make these tools available online to enable researchers to explore the ongoing sociocognitive transformations of science and technology systems.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.9, S.1871-1887

0.0065028244 = product of:
  0.02926271 = sum of:
    0.015116624 = weight(_text_:library in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015116624 = score(doc=3599,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 3599, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3599)
    0.014146087 = weight(_text_:of in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014146087 = score(doc=3599,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 3599, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3599)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

"Citation classics" are not only highly cited, but also cited during several decades. We explore whether the peaks in the spectrograms generated by Reference Publication Years Spectroscopy (RPYS) indicate such long-term impact by comparing across RPYS for subsequent time intervals. Multi-RPYS enables us to distinguish between short-term citation peaks at the research front that decay within 10 years versus historically constitutive (long-term) citations that function as concept symbols. Using these constitutive citations, one is able to cluster document sets (e.g., journals) in terms of intellectually shared histories. We test this premise by clustering 40 journals in the Web of Science Category of Information and Library Science using multi-RPYS. It follows that RPYS can not only be used for retrieving roots of sets under study (cited), but also for algorithmic historiography of the citing sets. Significant references are historically rooted symbols among other citations that function as currency.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.5, S.1224-1233

0.0061873845 = product of:
  0.02784323 = sum of:
    0.016671322 = weight(_text_:of in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016671322 = score(doc=3089,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
    0.011171908 = product of:
      0.022343816 = sum of:
        0.022343816 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022343816 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Climate change as a complex physical and social issue has gained increasing attention in the natural as well as the social sciences. Climate change research has become more interdisciplinary and even transdisciplinary as a typical Mode-2 science that is also dependent on an application context for its further development. We propose to approach interdisciplinarity as a co-construction of the knowledge base in the reference patterns and the programmatic focus in the editorials in the core journal of the climate-change sciences-Climatic Change-during the period 1977-2013. First, we analyze the knowledge base of the journal and map journal-journal relations on the basis of the references in the articles. Second, we follow the development of the programmatic focus by analyzing the semantics in the editorials. We argue that interdisciplinarity is a result of the co-construction between different agendas: The selection of publications into the knowledge base of the journal, and the adjustment of the programmatic focus to the political context in the editorials. Our results show a widening of the knowledge base from referencing the multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science to citing journals from specialist fields. The programmatic focus follows policy-oriented issues and incorporates public metaphors.

Date

24. 8.2016 17:53:22

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.9, S.2181-2193

0.00612275 = product of:
  0.027552376 = sum of:
    0.014146087 = weight(_text_:of in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014146087 = score(doc=2761,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03298316 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
    0.013406289 = product of:
      0.026812578 = sum of:
        0.026812578 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026812578 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03298316 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

International co-authorship relations and university-industry-government (Triple Helix) relations have hitherto been studied separately. Using Japanese publication data for the 1981-2004 period, we were able to study both kinds of relations in a single design. In the Japanese file, 1,277,030 articles with at least one Japanese address were attributed to the three sectors, and we know additionally whether these papers were coauthored internationally. Using the mutual information in three and four dimensions, respectively, we show that the Japanese Triple-Helix system has been continuously eroded at the national level. However, since the mid-1990s, international coauthorship relations have contributed to a reduction of the uncertainty at the national level. In other words, the national publication system of Japan has developed a capacity to retain surplus value generated internationally. In a final section, we compare these results with an analysis based on similar data for Canada. A relative uncoupling of national university-industry-government relations because of international collaborations is indicated in both countries.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:07:20

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.778-788