-
Haiqi, Z.: ¬The literature of Qigong : publication patterns and subject headings (1997)
0.06
0.061271157 = product of:
0.1378601 = sum of:
0.04242812 = product of:
0.08485624 = sum of:
0.08485624 = weight(_text_:headings in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08485624 = score(doc=862,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15996648 = queryWeight, product of:
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.5304626 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.015279518 = weight(_text_:of in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015279518 = score(doc=862,freq=12.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
0.06451179 = product of:
0.12902358 = sum of:
0.12902358 = weight(_text_:exercises in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12902358 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2345736 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.5500345 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.01564067 = product of:
0.03128134 = sum of:
0.03128134 = weight(_text_:22 in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03128134 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a bibliometric study of the literature of Qigong: a relaxation technique used to teach patients to control their heart rate, blood pressure, temperature and other involuntary functions through controlles breathing. All articles indexed in the MEDLINE CD-ROM database, between 1965 and 1995 were identified using 'breathing exercises' MeSH term. The articles were analyzed for geographical and language distribution and a ranking exercise enabled a core list of periodicals to be identified. In addition, the study shed light on the changing frequency of the MeSH terms and evaluated the research areas by measuring the information from these respective MeSH headings
- Source
- International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.38-44
-
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)
0.05
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
-
D'Angelo, C.A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G.: ¬A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments (2011)
0.04
0.03670932 = product of:
0.110127956 = sum of:
0.018521573 = weight(_text_:of in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018521573 = score(doc=4190,freq=24.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
0.078200094 = product of:
0.15640019 = sum of:
0.15640019 = weight(_text_:exercises in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15640019 = score(doc=4190,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2345736 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.6667425 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.013406289 = product of:
0.026812578 = sum of:
0.026812578 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026812578 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- National exercises for the evaluation of research activity by universities are becoming regular practice in ever more countries. These exercises have mainly been conducted through the application of peer-review methods. Bibliometrics has not been able to offer a valid large-scale alternative because of almost overwhelming difficulties in identifying the true author of each publication. We will address this problem by presenting a heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometric datasets for large-scale research assessments. The application proposed concerns the Italian university system, comprising 80 universities and a research staff of over 60,000 scientists. The key advantage of the proposed approach is the ease of implementation. The algorithms are of practical application and have considerably better scalability and expandability properties than state-of-the-art unsupervised approaches. Moreover, the performance in terms of precision and recall, which can be further improved, seems thoroughly adequate for the typical needs of large-scale bibliometric research assessments.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:06:52
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.257-269
-
Chung, Y.-K.: Bradford distribution and core authors in classification systems literature (1994)
0.04
0.03555334 = product of:
0.106660016 = sum of:
0.020155499 = weight(_text_:library in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020155499 = score(doc=5066,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 5066, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5066)
0.020163735 = weight(_text_:of in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020163735 = score(doc=5066,freq=16.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 5066, 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=5066)
0.06634078 = weight(_text_:congress in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06634078 = score(doc=5066,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.42163986 = fieldWeight in 5066, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5066)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Bradford's law of scatter was applied to the analysis of the authors of source documents on the subject of classification schemes, published in core periodicals over the period 1981-1990. Results indicated that: core authors of the international classification system literature are Library of Congress, M. Dewey, S. Ranganathan, J. Comaroni, A. Neelameghan, L. Chan and K. Markey; the highly cited authors are linked either to the developers of the classification schemes or to a research centre, or else they authored the most frequently cited books; and the data conforms to Bradford's Law of Scatter
-
Thelwall, M.: Bibliometrics to webometrics (2009)
0.03
0.03326371 = product of:
0.099791124 = sum of:
0.01763606 = weight(_text_:library in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01763606 = score(doc=4239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 4239, 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=4239)
0.01764327 = weight(_text_:of in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01764327 = score(doc=4239,freq=16.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 4239, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4239)
0.06451179 = product of:
0.12902358 = sum of:
0.12902358 = weight(_text_:exercises in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12902358 = score(doc=4239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2345736 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.5500345 = fieldWeight in 4239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4239)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Bibliometrics has changed out of all recognition since 1958; becoming established as a field, being taught widely in library and information science schools, and being at the core of a number of science evaluation research groups around the world. This was all made possible by the work of Eugene Garfield and his Science Citation Index. This article reviews the distance that bibliometrics has travelled since 1958 by comparing early bibliometrics with current practice, and by giving an overview of a range of recent developments, such as patent analysis, national research evaluation exercises, visualization techniques, new applications, online citation indexes, and the creation of digital libraries. Webometrics, a modern, fast-growing offshoot of bibliometrics, is reviewed in detail. Finally, future prospects are discussed with regard to both bibliometrics and webometrics.
-
Mommoh, O.M.: Subject analysis of post-graduate theses in library, archival and information science at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (1995/96)
0.03
0.028702397 = product of:
0.08610719 = sum of:
0.049370687 = weight(_text_:library in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049370687 = score(doc=673,freq=12.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.56927717 = fieldWeight in 673, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=673)
0.018861448 = weight(_text_:of in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018861448 = score(doc=673,freq=14.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 673, 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=673)
0.017875053 = product of:
0.035750106 = sum of:
0.035750106 = weight(_text_:22 in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035750106 = score(doc=673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 673, 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=673)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a bibliometric study of 111 theses accepted by the Department of Library and Information Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria, between 1977 and 1992. The analysis was based on year, type and degree awarded, subject, type of library and geographical area. Concludes that the highest number of submissions was 1991, when 108 MLS theses (97,29%) and 3 PhD theses (2,71%) were accepted. Libraries and readers was the most concetrated subject while the academic library was the most discussed type of library
- Source
- Library focus. 13/14(1995/96), S.22-25
-
Tsay, M.-y.; Shu, Z.-y.: Journal bibliometric analysis : a case study on the Journal of Documentation (2011)
0.03
0.02815992 = product of:
0.08447976 = sum of:
0.025194373 = weight(_text_:library in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025194373 = score(doc=294,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 294, 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=294)
0.017822394 = weight(_text_:of in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017822394 = score(doc=294,freq=32.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 294, 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=294)
0.041462988 = weight(_text_:congress in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041462988 = score(doc=294,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.26352492 = fieldWeight in 294, 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=294)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This study aims to explore the journal bibliometric characteristics of the Journal of Documentation (JOD) and the subject relationship with other disciplines by citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The citation data were drawn from references of each article of JOD during 1998 and 2008. Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, Library of Congress Subject Heading, retrieved from the WorldCat and LISA database were used to identify the main class, subclass and subject of cited journals and books. Findings - The results of this study revealed that journal articles are the most cited document, followed by books and book chapters, electronic resources, and conference proceedings, respectively. The three main classes of cited journals in JOD papers are library science, science, and social sciences. The three subclasses of non-LIS journals that were highly cited in JOD papers are Science, "Mathematics. Computer science", and "Industries. Land use. Labor". The three highly cited subjects of library and information science journals encompass searching, information work, and online information retrieval. The most cited main class of books in JOD papers is library and information science, followed by social sciences, science, "Philosophy. Psychology. Religion." The three highly cited subclasses of books in JOD papers are "Books (General). Writing. Paleography. Book industries and trade. Libraries. Bibliography," "Philology and linguistics," and Science, and the most cited subject of books is information storage and retrieval systems. Originality/value - Results for the present research found that information science, as represented by JOD, is a developing discipline with an expanding literature relating to multiple subject areas.
- Object
- Journal of documentation
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 67(2011) no.5, S.806-822
-
Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994)
0.03
0.028065577 = product of:
0.08419673 = sum of:
0.03527212 = weight(_text_:library in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03527212 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
0.01764327 = weight(_text_:of in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01764327 = score(doc=5666,freq=4.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
0.03128134 = product of:
0.06256268 = sum of:
0.06256268 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06256268 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
-
Rousseau, R.: Journal evaluation : technical and practical issues (2002)
0.03
0.027050473 = product of:
0.08115142 = sum of:
0.017815111 = weight(_text_:library in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017815111 = score(doc=816,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 816, 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=816)
0.01725646 = weight(_text_:of in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01725646 = score(doc=816,freq=30.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 816, product of:
5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
30.0 = termFreq=30.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=816)
0.046079848 = product of:
0.092159696 = sum of:
0.092159696 = weight(_text_:exercises in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.092159696 = score(doc=816,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2345736 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.39288178 = fieldWeight in 816, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=816)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- This essay provides an overview of journal evaluation indicators. It highlights the strengths and weaknesses of different indicators, together with their range of applicability. The definition of a "quality journal," different notions of impact factors, the meaning of ranking journals, and possible biases in citation databases are also discussed. Attention is given to using the journal impact in evaluation studies. The quality of a journal is a multifaceted notion. Journals can be evaluated for different purposes, and hence the results of such evaluation exercises can be quite different depending on the indicator(s) used. The impact factor, in one of its versions, is probably the most used indicator when it comes to gauging the visibility of a journal on the research front. Generalized impact factors, over periods longer than the traditional two years, are better indicators for the long-term value of a journal. As with all evaluation studies, care must be exercised when considering journal impact factors as a quality indicator. It seems best to use a whole battery of indicators (including several impact factors) and to change this group of indicators depending on the purpose of the evaluation study. Nowadays it goes without saying that special attention is paid to e-journals and specific indicators for this type of journal.
- Footnote
- Artikel in einem Themenheft "Current theory in library and information science"
- Source
- Library trends. 50(2002) no.3, S.418-439
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.03
0.026394878 = product of:
0.07918463 = sum of:
0.015122802 = weight(_text_:of in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015122802 = score(doc=1239,freq=4.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.03724925 = product of:
0.0744985 = sum of:
0.0744985 = weight(_text_:problems in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0744985 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.5472311 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.026812578 = product of:
0.053625155 = sum of:
0.053625155 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053625155 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, 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=1239)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.866-867
-
Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013)
0.02
0.02328267 = product of:
0.20954402 = sum of:
0.20954402 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.20954402 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2796316 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
- Content
- Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
-
White, H.D.; Boell, S.K.; Yu, H.; Davis, M.; Wilson, C.S.; Cole, F.T.H.: Libcitations : a measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences (2009)
0.02
0.023164941 = product of:
0.06949482 = sum of:
0.0125971865 = weight(_text_:library in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0125971865 = score(doc=2846,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 2846, 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=2846)
0.015434646 = weight(_text_:of in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015434646 = score(doc=2846,freq=24.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
0.041462988 = weight(_text_:congress in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041462988 = score(doc=2846,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15733992 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.26352492 = fieldWeight in 2846, 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=2846)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Bibliometric measures for evaluating research units in the book-oriented humanities and social sciences are underdeveloped relative to those available for journal-oriented science and technology. We therefore present a new measure designed for book-oriented fields: the libcitation count. This is a count of the libraries holding a given book, as reported in a national or international union catalog. As librarians decide what to acquire for the audiences they serve, they jointly constitute an instrument for gauging the cultural impact of books. Their decisions are informed by knowledge not only of audiences but also of the book world (e.g., the reputations of authors and the prestige of publishers). From libcitation counts, measures can be derived for comparing research units. Here, we imagine a match-up between the departments of history, philosophy, and political science at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney in Australia. We chose the 12 books from each department that had the highest libcitation counts in the Libraries Australia union catalog during 2000 to 2006. We present each book's raw libcitation count, its rank within its Library of Congress (LC) class, and its LC-class normalized libcitation score. The latter is patterned on the item-oriented field normalized citation score used in evaluative bibliometrics. Summary statistics based on these measures allow the departments to be compared for cultural impact. Our work has implications for programs such as Excellence in Research for Australia and the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom. It also has implications for data mining in OCLC's WorldCat.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.6, S.1083-1096
-
Siddiqui, M.A.: ¬A bibliometric study of authorship characteristics in four international information science journals (1997)
0.02
0.021909889 = product of:
0.06572966 = sum of:
0.033801798 = weight(_text_:library in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033801798 = score(doc=853,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.38975742 = fieldWeight in 853, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=853)
0.018521573 = weight(_text_:of in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018521573 = score(doc=853,freq=24.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 853, 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=853)
0.013406289 = product of:
0.026812578 = sum of:
0.026812578 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026812578 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 853, 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=853)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a bibliometric study of the authorship characteristics of articles published in 4 major information science periodicals: JASIS, Information technology and libraries, Journal of information science, and Program. The aim was to determine the details of their authors, such as: sex, occupation, affiliation, geographic distribution, and institutional affiliation. A total of 163 articles published in 1993 and written by 294 authors were analyzed. Results indicate that: men (206 or 70%) publish 3.0 times more articles than women (69 or 23,5%). Schools of library and information science contributed the most authors. The majority of authors came from the USA (148 or 50,3%), with the Midwest region claiming the largest share (110 or 25,0%). Academic libraries (110 or 37,4%) account for the major share of library publication. 12 schools of library and information science, in the USA, contributed 32 authors (50,0%) and assistant professors (25 or 39,1%) publish the most in these library schools. Male school of library and information science authors publish 1,6 times more than their female counterparts
- Source
- International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.3-23
-
Maharana, B.; Nayak, K.; Sahu, N.K.: Scholarly use of web resources in LIS research : a citation analysis (2006)
0.02
0.021489862 = product of:
0.06446958 = sum of:
0.017815111 = weight(_text_:library in 53) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017815111 = score(doc=53,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 53, 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=53)
0.019926041 = weight(_text_:of in 53) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019926041 = score(doc=53,freq=40.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 53, product of:
6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
40.0 = termFreq=40.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=53)
0.026728429 = product of:
0.053456858 = sum of:
0.053456858 = weight(_text_:etc in 53) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053456858 = score(doc=53,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17865302 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 53, 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=53)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The essential purpose of this paper is to measure the amount of web resources used for scholarly contributions in the area of library and information science (LIS) in India. It further aims to make an analysis of the nature and type of web resources and studies the various standards for web citations. Design/methodology/approach - In this study, the result of analysis of 292 web citations spread over 95 scholarly papers published in the proceedings of the National Conference of the Society for Information Science, India (SIS-2005) has been reported. All the 292 web citations were scanned and data relating to types of web domains, file formats, styles of citations, etc., were collected through a structured check list. The data thus obtained were systematically analyzed, figurative representations were made and appropriate interpretations were drawn. Findings - The study revealed that 292 (34.88 per cent) out of 837 were web citations, proving a significant correlation between the use of Internet resources and research productivity of LIS professionals in India. The highest number of web citations (35.6 per cent) was from .edu/.ac type domains. Most of the web resources (46.9 per cent) cited in the study were hypertext markup language (HTML) files. Originality/value - The paper is the result of an original analysis of web citations undertaken in order to study the dependence of LIS professionals in India on web sources for their scholarly contributions. This carries research value for web content providers, authors and researchers in LIS.
- Source
- Library review. 55(2006) no.9, S.598-607
-
Li, T.-C.: Reference sources in periodicals : research note (1995)
0.02
0.021280512 = product of:
0.06384154 = sum of:
0.02850418 = weight(_text_:library in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02850418 = score(doc=5092,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
0.017462308 = weight(_text_:of in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017462308 = score(doc=5092,freq=12.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
0.017875053 = product of:
0.035750106 = sum of:
0.035750106 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035750106 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5092, 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=5092)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Presents a list of 53 periodicals in 22 subject fields which regularly provide bibliographies of theses, research in progress and patents in their particular subject field. The fields of business, economics, history and literature have most periodical listings of dissertations and theses. Also lists 63 periodicals in 25 sub-disciplines which provide rankings or ratings. Rankings and ratings information predominates in the fields of business, sports and games, finance and banking, and library and information science
- Source
- Journal of information; communication; and library science. 2(1995) no.2, S.20-28
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors : an alternative research design with policy implications (2011)
0.02
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
-
Costas, R.; Zahedi, Z.; Wouters, P.: ¬The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media : large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations (2015)
0.02
0.020128494 = product of:
0.09057822 = sum of:
0.014777548 = weight(_text_:of in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014777548 = score(doc=2598,freq=22.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
0.07580067 = sum of:
0.053456858 = weight(_text_:etc in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053456858 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17865302 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
0.022343816 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022343816 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.3, S.260 - 288
-
Hu, X.: Loads of special authorship functions : linear growth in the percentage of "equal first authors" and corresponding authors (2009)
0.02
0.019926352 = product of:
0.08966859 = sum of:
0.015940834 = weight(_text_:of in 3159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015940834 = score(doc=3159,freq=10.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 3159, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3159)
0.07372776 = product of:
0.14745551 = sum of:
0.14745551 = weight(_text_:exercises in 3159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14745551 = score(doc=3159,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2345736 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.62861085 = fieldWeight in 3159, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3159)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- We show that between 1999 and 2008 the percentage of articles with more than one corresponding author or with several authors that contributed equally, leading to so-called equal first authors, has steadily been on the rise. Increasing numbers of corresponding authors and equally contributing authors may lead to increased stress on teamwork if not properly acknowledged in research evaluation exercises.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2378-2381
-
Huntington, P.; Nicholas, D.; Jamali, H.R.; Tenopir, C.: Article decay in the digital environment : an analysis of usage of OhioLINK by date of publication, employing deep log methods (2006)
0.02
0.019232173 = product of:
0.057696518 = sum of:
0.0125971865 = weight(_text_:library in 214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0125971865 = score(doc=214,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 214, 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=214)
0.018370902 = weight(_text_:of in 214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018370902 = score(doc=214,freq=34.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 214, 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=214)
0.026728429 = product of:
0.053456858 = sum of:
0.053456858 = weight(_text_:etc in 214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053456858 = score(doc=214,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17865302 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 214, 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=214)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- The article presents the early findings of an exploratory deep log analysis of journal usage on OhioLINK, conducted as part of the MaxData project, funded by the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services. OhioLINK, the original Big Deal, provides a single digital platform of nearly 6,000 full-text journals for more than 600,000 people; for the purposes of the analysis, the raw logs were obtained from OhioLINK for the period June 2004 to December 2004. During this period approximately 1,215,000 items were viewed on campus in October 2004 and 1,894,000 items viewed off campus between June and December 2004. This article provides an analysis of the age of material that users consulted. From a methodological point of view OhioLINK offered an attractive platform to conduct age of publication usage studies because it is one of the oldest e-journal libraries and thus offered a relatively long archive and stable platform to conduct the studies. The project sought to determine whether the subject, the search approach adopted, and the type of journal item viewed (contents page, abstract, full-text article, etc.) was a factor in regard to the age of articles used.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.13, S.1840-1851
-
Torres-Salinas, D.; Gorraiz, J.; Robinson-Garcia, N.: ¬The insoluble problems of books : what does Altmetric.com have to offer? (2018)
0.02
0.01922388 = product of:
0.04325373 = sum of:
0.010077749 = weight(_text_:library in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010077749 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08672522 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
0.011822038 = weight(_text_:of in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011822038 = score(doc=4633,freq=22.0), product of:
0.05157766 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.2292085 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
0.012416417 = product of:
0.024832834 = sum of:
0.024832834 = weight(_text_:problems in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024832834 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13613719 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.18241036 = fieldWeight in 4633, 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=4633)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0089375265 = product of:
0.017875053 = sum of:
0.017875053 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017875053 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11550141 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03298316 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Findings Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools. Practical implications This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com's functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 70(2018) no.6, S.691-707
