Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Davis, P.M.; Cohen, S.A.: ¬The effect of the Web on undergraduate citation behavior 1996-1999 (2001) 0.02 
    0.020866206 = product of:
  0.08346482 = sum of:
    0.08346482 = weight(_text_:sites in 5768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08346482 = score(doc=5768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2408473 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046071928 = queryNorm
        0.34654665 = fieldWeight in 5768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5768)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    A citation analysis of undergraduate term papers in microeconomics revealed a significant decrease in the frequency of scholarly resources cited between 1996 and 1999. Book citations decreased from 30% to 19%, newspaper citations increased from 7% to 19%, and Web citations increased from 9% to 21%. Web citations checked in 2000 revealed that only 18% of URLs cited in 1996 led to the correct Internet document. For 1999 bibliographies, only 55% of URLs led to the correct document. The authors recommend (1) setting stricter guidelines for acceptable citations in course assignments; (2) creating and maintaining scholarly portals for authoritative Web sites with a commitment to long-term access; and (3) continuing to instruct students how to critically evaluate resources
  2. Prime-Claverie, C.; Beigbeder, M.; Lafouge, T.: Transposition of the cocitation method with a view to classifying Web pages (2004) 0.02 
    0.020866206 = product of:
  0.08346482 = sum of:
    0.08346482 = weight(_text_:sites in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08346482 = score(doc=3095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2408473 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046071928 = queryNorm
        0.34654665 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The Web is a huge source of information, and one of the main problems facing users is finding documents which correspond to their requirements. Apart from the problem of thematic relevance, the documents retrieved by search engines do not always meet the users' expectations. The document may be too general, or conversely too specialized, or of a different type from what the user is looking for, and so forth. We think that adding metadata to pages can considerably improve the process of searching for information an the Web. This article presents a possible typology for Web sites and pages, as weIl as a method for propagating metadata values, based an the study of the Web graph and more specifically the method of cocitation in this graph.
  3. Aguillo, I.F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J.L.; Prieto, J.A.: Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetrics indicators (2006) 0.02 
    0.020866206 = product of:
  0.08346482 = sum of:
    0.08346482 = weight(_text_:sites in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08346482 = score(doc=5898,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2408473 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046071928 = queryNorm
        0.34654665 = fieldWeight in 5898, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5898)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    To test feasibility of cybermetric indicators for describing and ranking university activities as shown in their Web sites, a large set of 9,330 institutions worldwide was compiled and analyzed. Using search engines' advanced features, size (number of pages), visibility (number of external inlinks), and number of rich files (pdf, ps, doc, ppt, and As formats) were obtained for each of the institutional domains of the universities. We found a statistically significant correlation between a Web ranking built on a combination of Webometric data and other university rankings based on bibliometric and other indicators. Results show that cybermetric measures could be useful for reflecting the contribution of technologically oriented institutions, increasing the visibility of developing countries, and improving the rankings based on Science Citation Index (SCI) data with known biases.
  4. Thelwall, M.; Vaughan, L.; Björneborn, L.: Webometrics (2004) 0.02 
    0.017388504 = product of:
  0.069554016 = sum of:
    0.069554016 = weight(_text_:sites in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069554016 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2408473 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046071928 = queryNorm
        0.28878886 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  5. Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003) 0.02 
    0.017388504 = product of:
  0.069554016 = sum of:
    0.069554016 = weight(_text_:sites in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069554016 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2408473 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046071928 = queryNorm
        0.28878886 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.227637 = idf(docFreq=644, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.
  6. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.012484221 = product of:
  0.049936883 = sum of:
    0.049936883 = product of:
      0.09987377 = sum of:
        0.09987377 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09987377 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  7. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.01 
    0.012484221 = product of:
  0.049936883 = sum of:
    0.049936883 = product of:
      0.09987377 = sum of:
        0.09987377 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09987377 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, 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=4604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    7. 2.2005 14:10:22
  8. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.01 
    0.011034597 = product of:
  0.044138387 = sum of:
    0.044138387 = product of:
      0.08827677 = sum of:
        0.08827677 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08827677 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  9. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.01 
    0.007802638 = product of:
  0.031210553 = sum of:
    0.031210553 = product of:
      0.062421106 = sum of:
        0.062421106 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062421106 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
  10. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.006620758 = product of:
  0.026483033 = sum of:
    0.026483033 = product of:
      0.052966066 = sum of:
        0.052966066 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052966066 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  11. Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.D.: What do citation counts measure? : a review of studies on citing behavior (2008) 0.01 
    0.006360365 = product of:
  0.02544146 = sum of:
    0.02544146 = product of:
      0.05088292 = sum of:
        0.05088292 = weight(_text_:design in 1729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05088292 = score(doc=1729,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17322445 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.29373983 = fieldWeight in 1729, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1729)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present a narrative review of studies on the citing behavior of scientists, covering mainly research published in the last 15 years. Based on the results of these studies, the paper seeks to answer the question of the extent to which scientists are motivated to cite a publication not only to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of scientific peers, but also for other, possibly non-scientific, reasons. Design/methodology/approach - The review covers research published from the early 1960s up to mid-2005 (approximately 30 studies on citing behavior-reporting results in about 40 publications). Findings - The general tendency of the results of the empirical studies makes it clear that citing behavior is not motivated solely by the wish to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of colleague scientists, since the individual studies reveal also other, in part non-scientific, factors that play a part in the decision to cite. However, the results of the studies must also be deemed scarcely reliable: the studies vary widely in design, and their results can hardly be replicated. Many of the studies have methodological weaknesses. Furthermore, there is evidence that the different motivations of citers are "not so different or 'randomly given' to such an extent that the phenomenon of citation would lose its role as a reliable measure of impact". Originality/value - Given the increasing importance of evaluative bibliometrics in the world of scholarship, the question "What do citation counts measure?" is a particularly relevant and topical issue.
  12. Neuhaus, C.; Daniel, H.-D.: Data sources for performing citation analysis : an overview (2008) 0.01 
    0.0062964396 = product of:
  0.025185758 = sum of:
    0.025185758 = product of:
      0.050371516 = sum of:
        0.050371516 = weight(_text_:design in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050371516 = score(doc=1735,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17322445 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.29078758 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of new citation-enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as a data source for performing citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific's citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation-enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus. Findings - The study suggests that citation-enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis. Originality/value - The paper presents a valuable overview of new citation-enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation.
  13. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.01 
    0.0062421104 = product of:
  0.024968442 = sum of:
    0.024968442 = product of:
      0.049936883 = sum of:
        0.049936883 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049936883 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
  14. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.01 
    0.0054618465 = product of:
  0.021847386 = sum of:
    0.021847386 = product of:
      0.04369477 = sum of:
        0.04369477 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04369477 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, 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=6920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
  15. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.01 
    0.0054618465 = product of:
  0.021847386 = sum of:
    0.021847386 = product of:
      0.04369477 = sum of:
        0.04369477 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04369477 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, 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=5269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
  16. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.01 
    0.0054618465 = product of:
  0.021847386 = sum of:
    0.021847386 = product of:
      0.04369477 = sum of:
        0.04369477 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04369477 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
  17. Lin, X.; White, H.D.; Buzydlowski, J.: Real-time author co-citation mapping for online searching (2003) 0.01 
    0.0053969487 = product of:
  0.021587795 = sum of:
    0.021587795 = product of:
      0.04317559 = sum of:
        0.04317559 = weight(_text_:design in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04317559 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17322445 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.24924651 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Author searching is traditionally based on the matching of name strings. Special characteristics of authors as personal names and subject indicators are not considered. This makes it difficult to identify a set of related authors or to group authors by subjects in retrieval systems. In this paper, we describe the design and implementation of a prototype visualization system to enhance author searching. The system, called AuthorLink, is based on author co-citation analysis and visualization mapping algorithms such as Kohonen's feature maps and Pathfinder networks. AuthorLink produces interactive author maps in real time from a database of 1.26 million records supplied by the Institute for Scientific Information. The maps show subject groupings and more fine-grained intellectual connections among authors. Through the interactive interface the user can take advantage of such information to refine queries and retrieve documents through point-and-click manipulation of the authors' names.
  18. Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996) 0.00 
    0.0046815826 = product of:
  0.01872633 = sum of:
    0.01872633 = product of:
      0.03745266 = sum of:
        0.03745266 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03745266 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  19. Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998) 0.00 
    0.0046815826 = product of:
  0.01872633 = sum of:
    0.01872633 = product of:
      0.03745266 = sum of:
        0.03745266 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03745266 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:33:24
  20. wst: Cut-and-paste-Wissenschaft (2003) 0.00 
    0.0046815826 = product of:
  0.01872633 = sum of:
    0.01872633 = product of:
      0.03745266 = sum of:
        0.03745266 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03745266 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1270, 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=1270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    "Mikhail Simkin und Vwani Roychowdhury von der University of Califomia, Los Angeles, haben eine in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft verbreitete Unsitte erstmals quantitativ erfasst. Die Wissenschaftler analysierten die Verbreitung von Druckfehlern in den Literaturlisten wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten (www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043). 78 Prozent aller zitierten Aufsätze - so schätzen die Forscher - haben die zitierenden Wissenschaftler demnach nicht gelesen, sondern nur per 'cut and paste' von einer Vorlage in ihre eigene Literaturliste übernommen. Das könne man beispielsweise abschätzen aus der Analyse fehlerhafter Seitenangaben in der Literaturliste eines 1973 veröffentlichten Aufsatzes über die Struktur zweidimensionaler Kristalle: Dieser Aufsatz ist rund 4300 mal zitiert worden. In 196 Fällen enthalten die Zitate jedoch Fehler in der Jahreszahl, dem Band der Zeitschrift oder der Seitenzahl, die als Indikatoren für cut and paste genommen werden können, denn man kann, obwohl es Milliarden Möglichkeiten gibt, nur 45 verschiedene Arten von Druckfehlern unterscheiden. In erster Näherung ergibt sich eine Obergrenze für die Zahl der `echten Leser' daher aus der Zahl der unterscheidbaren Druckfehler (45) geteilt durch die Gesamtzahl der Publikationen mit Druckfehler (196), das macht etwa 22 Prozent."

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 28
  • d 5

Types

  • a 32
  • el 3
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes