Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

0.12564686 = product of:
  0.18847027 = sum of:
    0.10735885 = weight(_text_:search in 4539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10735885 = score(doc=4539,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.6144187 = fieldWeight in 4539, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4539)
    0.08111142 = product of:
      0.16222285 = sum of:
        0.16222285 = weight(_text_:engines in 4539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16222285 = score(doc=4539,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.63510275 = fieldWeight in 4539, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Search engines index only a proportion of the web and this proportion is not determined randomly but by following algorithms that take into account the properties that impact factors measure. A survey was conducted in order to test the coverage of search engines and to decide thether their partial coverage is indeed an obstacle to using them to calculate web impact factors. The results indicate that search engine coverage, even of large national domains is extremely uneven and would be likely to lead to misleading calculations

0.1025817 = product of:
  0.15387255 = sum of:
    0.08217951 = weight(_text_:search in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08217951 = score(doc=2350,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.47031635 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
    0.07169304 = product of:
      0.14338608 = sum of:
        0.14338608 = weight(_text_:engines in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14338608 = score(doc=2350,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.5613568 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Search engines are normally used to find information or Web sites, but Webometric investigations use them for quantitative data such as the number of pages matching a query and the international spread of those pages. For this type of application, the accuracy of the hit count estimates and range of URLs in the full results are important. Here, we compare the applications programming interfaces of Google, Yahoo!, and Live Search for 1,587 single word searches. The hit count estimates were broadly consistent but with Yahoo! and Google, reporting 5-6 times more hits than Live Search. Yahoo! tended to return slightly more matching URLs than Google, with Live Search returning significantly fewer. Yahoo!'s result URLs included a significantly wider range of domains and sites than the other two, and there was little consistency between the three engines in the number of different domains. In contrast, the three engines were reasonably consistent in the number of different top-level domains represented in the result URLs, although Yahoo! tended to return the most. In conclusion, quantitative results from the three search engines are mostly consistent but with unexpected types of inconsistency that users should be aware of. Google is recommended for hit count estimates but Yahoo! is recommended for all other Webometric purposes.

0.0801318 = product of:
  0.12019769 = sum of:
    0.058109686 = weight(_text_:search in 4490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058109686 = score(doc=4490,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.33256388 = fieldWeight in 4490, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4490)
    0.062088005 = product of:
      0.12417601 = sum of:
        0.12417601 = weight(_text_:engines in 4490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12417601 = score(doc=4490,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.4861493 = fieldWeight in 4490, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4490)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Web impact factors, the proposed web equivalent of impact factors for journals, can be calculated by using search engines. It has been found that the results are problematic because of the variable coverage of search engines as well as their ability to give significantly different results over short periods of time. The fundamental problem is that although some search engines provide a functionality that is capable of being used for impact calculations, this is not their primary task and therefore they do not give guarantees as to performance in this respect. In this paper, a bespoke web crawler designed specifically for the calculation of reliable WIFs is presented. This crawler was used to calculate WIFs for a number of UK universities, and the results of these calculations are discussed. The principal findings were that with certain restrictions, WIFs can be calculated reliably, but do not correlate with accepted research rankings owing to the variety of material hosted on university servers. Changes to the calculations to improve the fit of the results to research rankings are proposed, but there are still inherent problems undermining the reliability of the calculation. These problems still apply if the WIF scores are taken on their own as indicators of the general impact of any area of the Internet, but with care would not apply to online journals.

0.073910534 = product of:
  0.1108658 = sum of:
    0.07501928 = weight(_text_:search in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07501928 = score(doc=4626,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.4293381 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
    0.03584652 = product of:
      0.07169304 = sum of:
        0.07169304 = weight(_text_:engines in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07169304 = score(doc=4626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The primary webometric method for estimating the online impact of an organization is to count links to its website. Link counts have been available from commercial search engines for over a decade but this was set to end by early 2012 and so a replacement is needed. This article compares link counts to two alternative methods: URL citations and organization title mentions. New variations of these methods are also introduced. The three methods are compared against each other using Yahoo!. Two of the three methods (URL citations and organization title mentions) are also compared against each other using Bing. Evidence from a case study of 131 UK universities and 49 US Library and Information Science (LIS) departments suggests that Bing's Hit Count Estimates (HCEs) for popular title searches are not useful for webometric research but that Yahoo!'s HCEs for all three types of search and Bing's URL citation HCEs seem to be consistent. For exact URL counts the results of all three methods in Yahoo! and both methods in Bing are also consistent. Four types of accuracy factors are also introduced and defined: search engine coverage, search engine retrieval variation, search engine retrieval anomalies, and query polysemy.

0.07253622 = product of:
  0.10880433 = sum of:
    0.058109686 = weight(_text_:search in 4533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058109686 = score(doc=4533,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.33256388 = fieldWeight in 4533, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4533)
    0.05069464 = product of:
      0.10138928 = sum of:
        0.10138928 = weight(_text_:engines in 4533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10138928 = score(doc=4533,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.39693922 = fieldWeight in 4533, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4533)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - Link analysis is an established topic within webometrics. It normally uses counts of links between sets of web sites or to sets of web sites. These link counts are derived from web crawlers or commercial search engines with the latter being the only alternative for some investigations. This paper compares link counts with URL citation counts in order to assess whether the latter could be a replacement for the former if the major search engines withdraw their advanced hyperlink search facilities. Design/methodology/approach - URL citation counts are compared with link counts for a variety of data sets used in previous webometric studies. Findings - The results show a high degree of correlation between the two but with URL citations being much less numerous, at least outside academia and business. Research limitations/implications - The results cover a small selection of 15 case studies and so the findings are only indicative. Significant differences between results indicate that the difference between link counts and URL citation counts will vary between webometric studies. Practical implications - Should link searches be withdrawn, then link analyses of less well linked non-academic, non-commercial sites would be seriously weakened, although citations based on e-mail addresses could help to make citations more numerous than links for some business and academic contexts. Originality/value - This is the first systematic study of the difference between link counts and URL citation counts in a variety of contexts and it shows that there are significant differences between the two.

0.05551693 = product of:
  0.08327539 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 3906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=3906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 3906, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3906)
    0.043015826 = product of:
      0.08603165 = sum of:
        0.08603165 = weight(_text_:engines in 3906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08603165 = score(doc=3906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.33681408 = fieldWeight in 3906, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Webometrics is an information science field concerned with measuring aspects of the World Wide Web (WWW) for a variety of information science research goals. It came into existence about five years after the Web was formed and has since grown to become a significant aspect of information science, at least in terms of published research. Although some webometrics research has focused on the structure or evolution of the Web itself or the performance of commercial search engines, most has used data from the Web to shed light on information provision or online communication in various contexts. Most prominently, techniques have been developed to track, map, and assess Web-based informal scholarly communication, for example, in terms of the hyperlinks between academic Web sites or the online impact of digital repositories. In addition, a range of nonacademic issues and groups of Web users have also been analyzed.

0.04626411 = product of:
  0.06939616 = sum of:
    0.03354964 = weight(_text_:search in 978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03354964 = score(doc=978,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 978, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=978)
    0.03584652 = product of:
      0.07169304 = sum of:
        0.07169304 = weight(_text_:engines in 978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07169304 = score(doc=978,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 978, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=978)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

All known previous Web link studies have used the Web page as the primary indivisible source document for counting purposes. Arguments are presented to explain why this is not necessarily optimal and why other alternatives have the potential to produce better results. This is despite the fact that individual Web files are often the only choice if search engines are used for raw data and are the easiest basic Web unit to identify. The central issue is of defining the Web "document": that which should comprise the single indissoluble unit of coherent material. Three alternative heuristics are defined for the educational arena based upon the directory, the domain and the whole university site. These are then compared by implementing them an a set of 108 UK university institutional Web sites under the assumption that a more effective heuristic will tend to produce results that correlate more highly with institutional research productivity. It was discovered that the domain and directory models were able to successfully reduce the impact of anomalous linking behavior between pairs of Web sites, with the latter being the method of choice. Reasons are then given as to why a document model an its own cannot eliminate all anomalies in Web linking behavior. Finally, the results from all models give a clear confirmation of the very strong association between the research productivity of a UK university and the number of incoming links from its peers' Web sites.

0.04626411 = product of:
  0.06939616 = sum of:
    0.03354964 = weight(_text_:search in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03354964 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
    0.03584652 = product of:
      0.07169304 = sum of:
        0.07169304 = weight(_text_:engines in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07169304 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25542772 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.2806784 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.080822 = idf(docFreq=746, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.

0.015815454 = product of:
  0.04744636 = sum of:
    0.04744636 = weight(_text_:search in 1401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04744636 = score(doc=1401,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 1401, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1401)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to claim that it is useful to assess the web connectivity of research groups, describe hyperlink-based techniques to achieve this and present brief details of European life sciences research groups as a case study. Design/methodology/approach - A commercial search engine was harnessed to deliver hyperlink data via its automatic query submission interface. A special purpose link analysis tool, LexiURL, then summarised and graphed the link data in appropriate ways. Findings - Webometrics can provide a wide range of descriptive information about the international connectivity of research groups. Research limitations/implications - Only one field was analysed, data was taken from only one search engine, and the results were not validated. Practical implications - Web connectivity seems to be particularly important for attracting overseas job applicants and to promote research achievements and capabilities, and hence we contend that it can be useful for national and international governments to use webometrics to ensure that the web is being used effectively by research groups. Originality/value - This is the first paper to make a case for the value of using a range of webometric techniques to evaluate the web presences of research groups within a field, and possibly the first "applied" webometrics study produced for an external contract.

0.015815454 = product of:
  0.04744636 = sum of:
    0.04744636 = weight(_text_:search in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04744636 = score(doc=2946,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.27153727 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.

0.013419857 = product of:
  0.04025957 = sum of:
    0.04025957 = weight(_text_:search in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04025957 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1747324 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05027291 = queryNorm
        0.230407 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Patents sometimes cite webpages either as general background to the problem being addressed or to identify prior publications that limit the scope of the patent granted. Counts of the number of patents citing an organization's website may therefore provide an indicator of its technological capacity or relevance. This article introduces methods to extract URL citations from patents and evaluates the usefulness of counts of patent web citations as a technology indicator. An analysis of patents citing 200 US universities or 177 UK universities found computer science and engineering departments to be frequently cited, as well as research-related webpages, such as Wikipedia, YouTube, or the Internet Archive. Overall, however, patent URL citations seem to be frequent enough to be useful for ranking major US and the top few UK universities if popular hosted subdomains are filtered out, but the hit count estimates on the first search engine results page should not be relied upon for accuracy.

0.009081715 = product of:
  0.027245143 = sum of:
    0.027245143 = product of:
      0.054490287 = sum of:
        0.054490287 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054490287 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.008027177 = product of:
  0.024081532 = sum of:
    0.024081532 = product of:
      0.048163064 = sum of:
        0.048163064 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048163064 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:51

0.0068112854 = product of:
  0.020433856 = sum of:
    0.020433856 = product of:
      0.040867712 = sum of:
        0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040867712 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

0.0068112854 = product of:
  0.020433856 = sum of:
    0.020433856 = product of:
      0.040867712 = sum of:
        0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040867712 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

0.0068112854 = product of:
  0.020433856 = sum of:
    0.020433856 = product of:
      0.040867712 = sum of:
        0.040867712 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040867712 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

0.0056760716 = product of:
  0.017028214 = sum of:
    0.017028214 = product of:
      0.03405643 = sum of:
        0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03405643 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

0.0056760716 = product of:
  0.017028214 = sum of:
    0.017028214 = product of:
      0.03405643 = sum of:
        0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03405643 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, 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=57)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

6. 4.2012 18:16:22

0.0056760716 = product of:
  0.017028214 = sum of:
    0.017028214 = product of:
      0.03405643 = sum of:
        0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03405643 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, 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=3806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0056760716 = product of:
  0.017028214 = sum of:
    0.017028214 = product of:
      0.03405643 = sum of:
        0.03405643 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03405643 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17604718 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05027291 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22