-
Harter, S.P.; Nisonger, T.E.; Weng, A.: Semantic relationsships between cited and citing articles in library and information science journals (1993)
0.03
0.02815992 = product of:
0.08447976 = sum of:
0.025194373 = weight(_text_:library in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025194373 = score(doc=5644,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 5644, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5644)
0.017822394 = weight(_text_:of in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017822394 = score(doc=5644,freq=32.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 5644, 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=5644)
0.041462988 = weight(_text_:congress in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041462988 = score(doc=5644,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.26352492 = fieldWeight in 5644, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5644)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- The act of referencing another author's work in a scholarly or research paper is usually assumed to signal a direct semantic relationship between the citing and cited work. The present article reports a study that examines this assumption directly. The purpose of the research is to investigate the semantic relationship between citing and cited documents for a sample of document pairs in three journals in library and information science: 'Library journal', 'College and research libraries' and 'Journal of the American Society for Information Science'. A macroanalysis, absed on a comparison of the Library of Congress class numbers assigned citing and cited documents, and a microanalysis, based on a comparison of descriptors assigned citing and cited documents by three indexing and abstracting journals, ERIC, LISA and LiLi, were conducted. Both analyses suggest that the subject similarity among pairs of cited and citing documents is typically very small, supporting a subjective, psychological view of relevance and a trial-and-error, heuristic understanding of the information search and research processes. The results of the study have implications for collection development, for an understanding of psychological relevance, and for the results of doing information retrieval using cited references. Several intriguing methodological questions are raised for future research, including the role of indexing depth, specifity, and quality on the measurement of document similarity
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 44(1993) no.9, S.543-552
-
East, J.W.: Citations to conference papers and the implications for cataloging (1985)
0.02
0.018622853 = product of:
0.05586856 = sum of:
0.01763606 = weight(_text_:library in 7928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01763606 = score(doc=7928,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 7928, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7928)
0.016503768 = weight(_text_:of in 7928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016503768 = score(doc=7928,freq=14.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 7928, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7928)
0.02172873 = product of:
0.04345746 = sum of:
0.04345746 = weight(_text_:problems in 7928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04345746 = score(doc=7928,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.31921813 = fieldWeight in 7928, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7928)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Problems in the cataloging of conference proceedings, and their treatment by some of the major cataloging codes, are briefly reviewed. To determine how conference papers are cited in the literature, and thus how researchers are likely to be seeking them in the catalog, fifty conference papers in the field of chemistry, delivered in 1970 and subsequently published, were searches in the Science Citation Index covering a ten-year period. The citations to the papers were examined to ascertain the implications of current citation practices for the cataloging of conference proceedings. The results suggest that conference proceedings are customarily cited like any other work of collective authorship and that the conference name is of little value as an access point
- Source
- Library resources and technical services. 29(1985), S.189-194
-
Gabel, J.: Improving information retrieval of subjects through citation-analysis (2006)
0.02
0.018230466 = product of:
0.054691397 = sum of:
0.030305803 = product of:
0.060611606 = sum of:
0.060611606 = weight(_text_:headings in 61) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060611606 = score(doc=61,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.3789019 = fieldWeight in 61, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=61)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0125971865 = weight(_text_:library in 61) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0125971865 = score(doc=61,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 61, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=61)
0.0117884055 = weight(_text_:of in 61) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0117884055 = score(doc=61,freq=14.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 61, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=61)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Citation-chasing is proposed as a method of discovering additional terms to enhance subject-search retrieval by broadening and prioritizing the results. Subjects attached to records representing cited works are compared to subjects attached to records representing the original citing sources, and to the subjects yielded by chasing see-also references from the latter group of headings. Original citing sources were yielded via a subject-list search in a library catalog using the subject heading "Language and languages - Origin." A subject-search was employed to avoid subjectivity in choosing sources. References from the sources were searched in OCLC where applicable, and the subject headings were retrieved. The subjects were ranked first by number of citations from original sources, then by total citation-frequency. The results were tiered into 4 groups in a Bradford-like distribution. A similar rank and division was performed on the subjects representing the original citing sources, and those yielded by chasing see-also references. Both in terms of subject frequency and topic type, positive comparisons between citation chasing and see-also references show a confirmation of different methods of yielding alternative subjects. Exclusive results suggest potential mutual complementary value among these different methods.
-
Kelland, J.L.; Young, A.P.: Citation patterns and library use (1998)
0.02
0.015836949 = product of:
0.07126627 = sum of:
0.05700836 = weight(_text_:library in 1301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05700836 = score(doc=1301,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.65734464 = fieldWeight in 1301, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1301)
0.014257914 = weight(_text_:of in 1301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014257914 = score(doc=1301,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 1301, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1301)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Source
- Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.61, [=Suppl.24]
-
Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996)
0.02
0.015717905 = product of:
0.047153715 = sum of:
0.015122802 = weight(_text_:of in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015122802 = score(doc=4215,freq=16.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
0.018624624 = product of:
0.03724925 = sum of:
0.03724925 = weight(_text_:problems in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03724925 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.013406289 = product of:
0.026812578 = sum of:
0.026812578 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026812578 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.4, S.302-310
-
MacRoberts, M.H.; MacRoberts, B.R.: Problems of citation analysis : a critical review (1989)
0.02
0.0155176455 = product of:
0.069829404 = sum of:
0.020163735 = weight(_text_:of in 6901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020163735 = score(doc=6901,freq=4.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 6901, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6901)
0.049665667 = product of:
0.099331334 = sum of:
0.099331334 = weight(_text_:problems in 6901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.099331334 = score(doc=6901,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.72964144 = fieldWeight in 6901, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6901)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 40(1989), S.342-349
-
Haridasan, S.; Kulshrestha, V.K.: Citation analysis of scholarly communication in the journal Knowledge Organization (2007)
0.01
0.014709836 = product of:
0.044129506 = sum of:
0.017455176 = weight(_text_:library in 863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017455176 = score(doc=863,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.20126988 = fieldWeight in 863, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=863)
0.014257914 = weight(_text_:of in 863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014257914 = score(doc=863,freq=32.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 863, product of:
5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
32.0 = termFreq=32.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=863)
0.012416417 = product of:
0.024832834 = sum of:
0.024832834 = weight(_text_:problems in 863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024832834 = score(doc=863,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.18241036 = fieldWeight in 863, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=863)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Purpose - Citation analysis is one of the popular methods employed for identification of core documents and complex relationship between citing and cited documents for a particular scholarly community in a geographical proximity. The present citation study is to understand the information needs, use pattern and use behaviour of library and information science researchers particularly engaged in the field of knowledge organization. Design/methodology/approach - The data relating to all the references appended to the articles during the period under study were collected and tabulated. Findings - Citation analysis of the journal for the period under study reveals that the average number of citations is around 21 per article. The major source of information is books and documents published during the later half of the century (1982-91). Authors from the USA, UK and Germany are the major contributors to the journal. India is ranked seventh in terms of contributions. Research limitations/implications - The study undertaken is limited to nine years, i.e. 1993-2001. The model citation index of the journal is analyzed using the first seven core authors. Practical implications - Ranking of periodicals helps to identify the core periodicals cited in the journal Knowledge Organization. Ranking of authors is done to know the eminent personalities in the subject, whose work is used by the authors to refine their ideas on the subject or topic. Originality/value - Model Citation Index for the first seven most cited authors was worked out and it reveals the historical relationship of cited and citing documents. This model citation index can be used to identify, the most cited authors as researchers currently working on special problems, to determine whether a paper has been cited, whether there has been a review of a subject, whether a concept has been applied, a theory confirmed or a method improved.
- Content
- Vgl..: Burton, P.F.: On reading "The banning of books in libraries". In: Library review. 56(2007) no.3, S.197-199.
- Source
- Library review. 56(2007) no.4, S.299-310
-
Gabel, J.: Improving information retrieval of subjects through citation-analysis : a study (2006)
0.01
0.014312606 = product of:
0.04293782 = sum of:
0.021429438 = product of:
0.042858876 = sum of:
0.042858876 = weight(_text_:headings in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042858876 = score(doc=225,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0125971865 = weight(_text_:library in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0125971865 = score(doc=225,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
0.008911197 = weight(_text_:of in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008911197 = score(doc=225,freq=8.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Citation-chasing is proposed as a method of discovering additional terms to enhance subjectsearch retrieval. Subjects attached to OCLC records for cited works are compared to those attached to original citing sources. Citing sources were produced via a subject-list search in a library catalog using the LCSH "Language and languages-Origin." A subject-search was employed to avoid subjectivity in choosing sources. References from the sources were searched in OCLC where applicable, and the subject headings were retrieved. The subjects were ranked by citation-frequency and tiered into 3 groups in a Bradford-like distribution. Highly cited subjects were produced that were not revealed through the original search. A difference in relative importance among the subjects was also revealed. Broad extra-linguistic topics like evolution are more prominent than specific linguistic topics like phonology. There are exceptions, which appear somewhat predictable by the amount of imbalance in citation-representation among the 2 sources. Citation leaders were also produced for authors and secondary-source titles.
- Source
- Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
-
Hjerppe, R.: ¬An outline of bibliometrics and citation analysis (1980)
0.01
0.013438829 = product of:
0.06047473 = sum of:
0.040310998 = weight(_text_:library in 1115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040310998 = score(doc=1115,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.46481284 = fieldWeight in 1115, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1115)
0.020163735 = weight(_text_:of in 1115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020163735 = score(doc=1115,freq=4.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 1115, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1115)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Imprint
- Stockholm : Royal Institute of Technology Library
-
Huber, C.: Web of science (1999)
0.01
0.013438829 = product of:
0.06047473 = sum of:
0.040310998 = weight(_text_:library in 3595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040310998 = score(doc=3595,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.46481284 = fieldWeight in 3595, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3595)
0.020163735 = weight(_text_:of in 3595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020163735 = score(doc=3595,freq=4.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 3595, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3595)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Object
- Web of science
- Source
- Library journal. 124(1999) no.2, S.132
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Opthof, T.: Citation analysis with medical subject Headings (MeSH) using the Web of Knowledge : a new routine (2013)
0.01
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
-
Snyder, H.; Cronin, B.; Davenport, E.: What's the use of citation? : Citation analysis as a literature topic in selected disciplines of the social sciences (1995)
0.01
0.011320222 = product of:
0.050940998 = sum of:
0.030233247 = weight(_text_:library in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030233247 = score(doc=1825,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
0.02070775 = weight(_text_:of in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02070775 = score(doc=1825,freq=30.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.4014868 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
30.0 = termFreq=30.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions
- Source
- Journal of information science. 21(1995) no.2, S.75-85
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.01
0.011112894 = product of:
0.05000802 = sum of:
0.014257914 = weight(_text_:of in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014257914 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
0.035750106 = product of:
0.07150021 = sum of:
0.07150021 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07150021 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = 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)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
- Source
- Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx
-
Osareh, F.: Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis : a review of literature II (1996)
0.01
0.009999237 = product of:
0.044996567 = sum of:
0.020163735 = weight(_text_:of in 7105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020163735 = score(doc=7105,freq=16.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 7105, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7105)
0.024832834 = product of:
0.049665667 = sum of:
0.049665667 = weight(_text_:problems in 7105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049665667 = score(doc=7105,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.36482072 = fieldWeight in 7105, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7105)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Part 2 of a 2 part article reviewing the technique of bibliometrics and one of its most widely used methods, citation analysis. Reports on studies of author co-citation, periodical by periodical citation analysis and country by country citation analysis in addition to the mapping of science as an application of citation analysis. Considers the limitations, problems and reliability of citation analysis
-
MacRoberts, M.H.; MacRoberts, B.R.: Problems of citation analysis : a study of uncited and seldom-cited influences (2010)
0.01
0.009999237 = product of:
0.044996567 = sum of:
0.020163735 = weight(_text_:of in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020163735 = score(doc=3308,freq=16.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
0.024832834 = product of:
0.049665667 = sum of:
0.049665667 = weight(_text_:problems in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049665667 = score(doc=3308,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.36482072 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- To determine influences on the production of a scientific article, the content of the article must be studied. We examined articles in biogeography and found that most of the influence is not cited, specific types of articles that are influential are cited while other types of that also are influential are not cited, and work that is uncited and seldom cited is used extensively. As a result, evaluative citation analysis should take uncited work into account.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.1, S.1-12
-
Ardanuy, J.: Sixty years of citation analysis studies in the humanities (1951-2010) (2013)
0.01
0.009382871 = product of:
0.042222917 = sum of:
0.026182763 = weight(_text_:library in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026182763 = score(doc=1015,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 1015, 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=1015)
0.016040152 = weight(_text_:of in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016040152 = score(doc=1015,freq=18.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 1015, 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=1015)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- This article provides an overview of studies that have used citation analysis in the field of humanities in the period 1951 to 2010. The work is based on an exhaustive search in databases-particularly those in library and information science-and on citation chaining from papers on citation analysis. The results confirm that use of this technique in the humanities is limited, and although there was some growth in the 1970s and 1980s, it has stagnated in the past 2 decades. Most of the work has been done by research staff, but almost one third involves library staff, and 15% has been done by students. The study also showed that less than one fourth of the works used a citation database such as the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and that 21% of the works were in publications other than library and information science journals. The United States has the greatest output, and English is by far the most frequently used language, and 13.9% of the studies are in other languages.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.8, S.1751-1755
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.01
0.00900225 = product of:
0.04051012 = sum of:
0.008911197 = weight(_text_:of in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008911197 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.031598926 = product of:
0.06319785 = sum of:
0.06319785 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06319785 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = 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)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
-
Jacobs, N.; Woodfield, J.; Morris, A.: Using local citation data to relate the use of journal articles by academic researchers to the coverage of full-text document access systems (2000)
0.01
0.008866602 = product of:
0.039899707 = sum of:
0.021378135 = weight(_text_:library in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021378135 = score(doc=4541,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 4541, 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=4541)
0.018521573 = weight(_text_:of in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018521573 = score(doc=4541,freq=24.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4541, 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=4541)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- The methodology and findings are presented of an empirical study comparing local citation patterns with the holdings lists of a number of sources of journal articles. These sources were the British Library Document Supply Centre (BLDSC) and the BL inside service, library holdings, ProQuest Direct, SearchBank, EiText and a linking system including both the Geobase database and the BLDSC. The value of local citation figures is discussed, as is the concept of a "core" of journal titles, from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Using these figures to represent the local use of journal articles, the coverage of the document sources was found to vary widely. Unsurprisingly, the BLDSC was found to offer the widest coverage. Newer, electronic systems generally fared less well, but may offer other advantages.
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 56(2000) no.5, S.563-581
-
Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002)
0.01
0.008395215 = product of:
0.037778463 = sum of:
0.015434646 = weight(_text_:of in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015434646 = score(doc=613,freq=6.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
0.022343816 = product of:
0.044687632 = sum of:
0.044687632 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044687632 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Content
- Abschnitte zu: The origins of citation indexing in science - Citation analysis in sociology, history and philosophy of science - From ASIS to ASIST
- Source
- Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
-
Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013)
0.01
0.008163667 = product of:
0.036736503 = sum of:
0.018861448 = weight(_text_:of in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018861448 = score(doc=1149,freq=14.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
0.017875053 = product of:
0.035750106 = sum of:
0.035750106 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035750106 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other.
- Date
- 17.12.2013 11:02:22
