Search (85 results, page 1 of 5)

0.025648585 = product of:
  0.07694575 = sum of:
    0.07694575 = sum of:
      0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016908498 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044112243 = queryNorm
          0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.030154258 = weight(_text_:29 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030154258 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044112243 = queryNorm
          0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.029883001 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029883001 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044112243 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

29. 9.2018 11:22:09

Source

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

0.015844489 = product of:
  0.047533464 = sum of:
    0.047533464 = product of:
      0.07130019 = sum of:
        0.041417193 = weight(_text_:science in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041417193 = score(doc=4186,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
        0.029883001 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029883001 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

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

Date

22. 1.2011 12:51:07

Source

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

0.015778502 = product of:
  0.047335505 = sum of:
    0.047335505 = product of:
      0.07100326 = sum of:
        0.03514366 = weight(_text_:science in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03514366 = score(doc=4460,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
        0.0358596 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0358596 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

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

Date

6.11.2005 19:02:22

0.014790399 = product of:
  0.044371195 = sum of:
    0.044371195 = product of:
      0.06655679 = sum of:
        0.023912227 = weight(_text_:science in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023912227 = score(doc=3297,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
        0.04264456 = weight(_text_:29 in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04264456 = score(doc=3297,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.2748193 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

When using scientific literature to model scholarly discourse, a research specialty can be operationalized as an evolving set of related documents. Each publication can be expected to contribute to the further development of the specialty at the research front. The specific combinations of title words and cited references in a paper can then be considered as a signature of the knowledge claim in the paper: New words and combinations of words can be expected to represent variation, while each paper is at the same time selectively positioned into the intellectual organization of a field using context-relevant references. Can the mutual information among these three dimensions - title words, cited references, and sequence numbers - be used as an indicator of the extent to which intellectual organization structures the uncertainty prevailing at a research front? The effect of the discovery of nanotubes (1991) on the previously existing field of fullerenes is used as a test case. Thereafter, this method is applied to science studies with a focus on scientometrics using various sample delineations. An emerging research front about citation analysis can be indicated.

Date

2. 2.2010 19:29:29

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.12, S.2488-2498

0.014641746 = product of:
  0.043925237 = sum of:
    0.043925237 = product of:
      0.06588785 = sum of:
        0.023671897 = weight(_text_:science in 1970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023671897 = score(doc=1970,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1970, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1970)
        0.04221596 = weight(_text_:29 in 1970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04221596 = score(doc=1970,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1970, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1970)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

12. 7.2008 18:46:29

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1528-1530

0.014345395 = product of:
  0.043036185 = sum of:
    0.043036185 = product of:
      0.064554274 = sum of:
        0.028694674 = weight(_text_:science in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028694674 = score(doc=4681,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
        0.0358596 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0358596 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

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

Date

8. 1.2019 18:22:45

Source

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

0.01320903 = product of:
  0.03962709 = sum of:
    0.03962709 = product of:
      0.059440635 = sum of:
        0.029286379 = weight(_text_:science in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029286379 = score(doc=1200,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 1200, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1200)
        0.030154258 = weight(_text_:29 in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030154258 = score(doc=1200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1200, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1200)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Portfolio analysis of the publication profile of a unit of interest, ranging from individuals and organizations to a scientific field or interdisciplinary programs, aims to inform analysts and decision makers about the position of the unit, where it has been, and where it may go in a complex adaptive environment. A portfolio analysis may aim to identify the gap between the current position of an organization and a goal that it intends to achieve or identify competencies of multiple institutions. We introduce a new visual analytic method for analyzing, comparing, and contrasting characteristics of publication portfolios. The new method introduces a novel design of dual-map thematic overlays on global maps of science. Each publication portfolio can be added as one layer of dual-map overlays over 2 related, but distinct, global maps of science: one for citing journals and the other for cited journals. We demonstrate how the new design facilitates a portfolio analysis in terms of patterns emerging from the distributions of citation threads and the dynamics of trajectories as a function of space and time. We first demonstrate the analysis of portfolios defined on a single source article. Then we contrast publication portfolios of multiple comparable units of interest; namely, colleges in universities and corporate research organizations. We also include examples of overlays of scientific fields. We expect that our method will provide new insights to portfolio analysis.

Date

29. 1.2014 16:38:28

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.334-351

0.013148753 = product of:
  0.039446257 = sum of:
    0.039446257 = product of:
      0.05916938 = sum of:
        0.029286379 = weight(_text_:science in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029286379 = score(doc=3089,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
        0.029883001 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029883001 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

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

Date

24. 8.2016 17:53:22

Source

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

0.012477733 = product of:
  0.0374332 = sum of:
    0.0374332 = product of:
      0.056149796 = sum of:
        0.020290198 = weight(_text_:science in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020290198 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
        0.0358596 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0358596 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15447356 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:07:20

Source

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

0.01045839 = product of:
  0.03137517 = sum of:
    0.03137517 = product of:
      0.047062755 = sum of:
        0.016908498 = weight(_text_:science in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016908498 = score(doc=1211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
        0.030154258 = weight(_text_:29 in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030154258 = score(doc=1211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15517308 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

29. 1.2014 16:44:54

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.386-399

0.0063765943 = product of:
  0.019129783 = sum of:
    0.019129783 = product of:
      0.05738935 = sum of:
        0.05738935 = weight(_text_:science in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05738935 = score(doc=2779,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.49389738 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

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

Aid

Web of Science

Source

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

0.005964758 = product of:
  0.017894274 = sum of:
    0.017894274 = product of:
      0.05368282 = sum of:
        0.05368282 = weight(_text_:science in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05368282 = score(doc=4813,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.4619987 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Methods developed for mapping the journal structure contained in aggregated journal-journal citations in the Science Citation Index (SCI; Thomson ISI, 2002) are applied to the Chinese Science Citation Database of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. This database covered 991 journals in 2001, of which only 37 originally had English titles; only 31 of which were covered by the SCI. Using factor-analytical and graph-analytical techniques, the authors show that the journal relations are dually structured. The main structure is the intellectual organization of the journals in journal groups (as in the international SCI), but the university-based journals provide an institutional layer that orients this structure towards practical ends (e.g., agriculture). This mechanism of integration is further distinguished from the role of general science journals. The Chinese Science Citation Database thus exhibits the characteristics of "Mode 2" or transdisciplinary science in the production of scientific knowledge more than its Western counterpart does. The contexts of application lead to correlation among the components.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.14, S.1469-1479

0.0050411406 = product of:
  0.015123421 = sum of:
    0.015123421 = product of:
      0.045370262 = sum of:
        0.045370262 = weight(_text_:science in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045370262 = score(doc=70,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The journal structure in the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database (CSTPCD) is analyzed from three perspectives: the database level, the specialty level, and the institutional level (i.e., university journals vs. journals issued by the Chinese Academy of Sciences). The results are compared with those for (Chinese) journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI). The frequency of journal-journal citation relations in the CSTPCD is an order of magnitude lower than in the SCI. Chinese journals, especially high-quality journals, prefer to cite international journals rather than domestic ones; however, Chinese journals do not get an equivalent reception from their international counterparts. The international visibility of Chinese journals is low, but varies among fields of science. Journals of the Chinese Academy of Sciences have a better reception in the international scientific community than university journals.

Object

Science Citation Index

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.2, S.223-236

0.0050411406 = product of:
  0.015123421 = sum of:
    0.015123421 = product of:
      0.045370262 = sum of:
        0.045370262 = weight(_text_:science in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045370262 = score(doc=3436,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The possibilities of using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) for journal mapping have not been sufficiently recognized because of the absence of a Journal Citations Report (JCR) for this database. A quasi-JCR for the A&HCI ([2008]) was constructed from the data contained in the Web of Science and is used for the evaluation of two journals as examples: Leonardo and Art Journal. The maps on the basis of the aggregated journal-journal citations within this domain can be compared with maps including references to journals in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Art journals are cited by (social) science journals more than by other art journals, but these journals draw upon one another in terms of their own references. This cultural impact in terms of being cited is not found when documents with a topic such as digital humanities are analyzed. This community of practice functions more as an intellectual organizer than a journal.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.4, S.787-801

0.0050411406 = product of:
  0.015123421 = sum of:
    0.015123421 = product of:
      0.045370262 = sum of:
        0.045370262 = weight(_text_:science in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045370262 = score(doc=1108,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.11, S.2299-2309

0.0050411406 = product of:
  0.015123421 = sum of:
    0.015123421 = product of:
      0.045370262 = sum of:
        0.045370262 = weight(_text_:science in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045370262 = score(doc=2224,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 2224, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2224)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

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

Object

Web of Science

Source

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

0.004970632 = product of:
  0.014911896 = sum of:
    0.014911896 = product of:
      0.044735685 = sum of:
        0.044735685 = weight(_text_:science in 2713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044735685 = score(doc=2713,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.38499892 = fieldWeight in 2713, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2713)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The decomposition of scientific literature into disciplinary and subdisciplinary structures is one of the core goals of scientometrics. How can we achieve a good decomposition? The ISI subject categories classify journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI). The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports can be aggregated on the basis of these categories. This leads to an asymmetrical matrix (citing versus cited) that is much more densely populated than the underlying matrix at the journal level. Exploratory factor analysis of the matrix of subject categories suggests a 14-factor solution. This solution could be interpreted as the disciplinary structure of science. The nested maps of science (corresponding to 14 factors, 172 categories, and 6,164 journals) are online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/map06. Presumably, inaccuracies in the attribution of journals to the ISI subject categories average out so that the factor analysis reveals the main structures. The mapping of science could, therefore, be comprehensive and reliable on a large scale albeit imprecise in terms of the attribution of journals to the ISI subject categories.

Object

Map of Science

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.2, S.348-362

0.0045556594 = product of:
  0.013666978 = sum of:
    0.013666978 = product of:
      0.041000932 = sum of:
        0.041000932 = weight(_text_:science in 8281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041000932 = score(doc=8281,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 8281, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8281)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes a method for the generation of journal-journal citation maps on the basis of the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index. Discusses sources of potential error from this data. Offers strategies to counteract such errors. Analyzes a number of scientometric periodical mappings in relation to mappings from previous studies which have used tape data and/or data from ISI's Journal Citation Reports. Compares the quality of these mappings with the quality of those for previous years in order to demonstrate the use of such mappings as indicators for dynamic developments in the sciences

Object

Science Citation Index

0.0045556594 = product of:
  0.013666978 = sum of:
    0.013666978 = product of:
      0.041000932 = sum of:
        0.041000932 = weight(_text_:science in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041000932 = score(doc=1249,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Can the inclusion of new journals in the Science Citation Index be used for the indication of structural change in the database, and how can this change be compared with reorganizations of reiations among previously included journals? Change in the number of journals (n) is distinguished from change in the number of journal categories (m). Although the number of journals can be considered as a given at each moment in time, the number of journal categories is based an a reconstruction that is time-stamped ex post. The reflexive reconstruction is in need of an update when new information becomes available in a next year. Implications of this shift towards an evolutionary perspective are specified.

Object

Science Citation Index

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.12, S.987-994

0.0045556594 = product of:
  0.013666978 = sum of:
    0.013666978 = product of:
      0.041000932 = sum of:
        0.041000932 = weight(_text_:science in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041000932 = score(doc=4466,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11619691 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044112243 = queryNorm
            0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Fractional counting of citations can improve on ranking of multidisciplinary research units (such as universities) by normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of differences in citation behavior. Furthermore, normalization in terms of citing papers abolishes the unsolved questions in scientometrics about the delineation of fields of science in terms of journals and normalization when comparing among different (sets of) journals. Using publication and citation data of seven Korean research universities, we demonstrate the advantages and the differences in the rankings, explain the possible statistics, and suggest ways to visualize the differences in (citing) audiences in terms of a network.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1146-1155