Search (75 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. He, Y.; Hui, S.C.: PubSearch : a Web citation-based retrieval system (2001) 0.08 
    0.077833846 = product of:
  0.11675076 = sum of:
    0.06606405 = weight(_text_:wide in 4806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06606405 = score(doc=4806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 4806, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4806)
    0.05068671 = product of:
      0.10137342 = sum of:
        0.10137342 = weight(_text_:web in 4806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10137342 = score(doc=4806,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 4806, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Many scientific publications are now available on the World Wide Web for researchers to share research findings. However, they tend to be poorly organised, making the search of relevant publications difficult and time-consuming. Most existing search engines are ineffective in searching these publications, as they do not index Web publications that normally appear in PDF (portable document format) or PostScript formats. Proposes a Web citation-based retrieval system, known as PubSearch, for the retrieval of Web publications. PubSearch indexes Web publications based on citation indices and stores them into a Web Citation Database. The Web Citation Database is then mined to support publication retrieval. Apart from supporting the traditional cited reference search, PubSearch also provides document clustering search and author clustering search. Document clustering groups related publications into clusters, while author clustering categorizes authors into different research areas based on author co-citation analysis.
  2. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.04 
    0.03575964 = product of:
  0.10727891 = sum of:
    0.10727891 = sum of:
      0.0591345 = weight(_text_:web in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0591345 = score(doc=40,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.048144415 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048144415 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
    Object
    Web of Science
  3. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.03 
    0.03444831 = product of:
  0.10334493 = sum of:
    0.10334493 = sum of:
      0.062078293 = weight(_text_:web in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.062078293 = score(doc=590,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
      0.041266643 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041266643 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Content
    "Zur Kurzmitteilung "Latest enhancements in Scopus: ... h-Index incorporated in Scopus" in den letzten Online-Mitteilungen (Online-Mitteilungen 92, S.31) ist zu korrigieren, dass der h-Index sehr wohl bereits im Web of Science enthalten ist. Allerdings findet man/frau diese Information nicht in der "cited ref search", sondern neben der Trefferliste einer Quick Search, General Search oder einer Suche über den Author Finder in der rechten Navigationsleiste unter dem Titel "Citation Report". Der "Citation Report" bietet für die in der jeweiligen Trefferliste angezeigten Arbeiten: - Die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen aller Arbeiten in der Trefferliste - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten - Die Anzahl der Zitierungen der einzelnen Arbeiten, aufgeschlüsselt nach Publikationsjahr der zitierenden Arbeiten - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten pro Jahr - Den h-Index (ein h-Index von x sagt aus, dass x Arbeiten der Trefferliste mehr als x-mal zitiert wurden; er ist gegenüber sehr hohen Zitierungen einzelner Arbeiten unempfindlicher als die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit)."
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
    Object
    Web of Science
  4. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.03 
    0.031400256 = product of:
  0.09420077 = sum of:
    0.09420077 = sum of:
      0.035840917 = weight(_text_:web in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035840917 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.05835985 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05835985 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20%, 50%, and 80% of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  5. Garfield, E.: When to cite (1996) 0.03 
    0.029361803 = product of:
  0.088085406 = sum of:
    0.088085406 = weight(_text_:wide in 7080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088085406 = score(doc=7080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.3916274 = fieldWeight in 7080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7080)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In spite of numerous studies of citation behaviour and the wide recognition by journal editors of the need to acknowledge intellectual debts, authors and referees need explicit reminders as to when formal refrences or acknowledgements are appropriate. Notes a 3 year experiment involving graduate students which demonstrated the varying perceptions of the need for documentation off terminology, ideas and methods. Suggests a tentative tutorial for journal editors that should be modified in each scholarly context
  6. Fujigaki, Y.: ¬The citation system : citation networks as repeatedly focusing on difference, continuous re-evaluation, and as persistent knowledge accumulation (1998) 0.03 
    0.029361803 = product of:
  0.088085406 = sum of:
    0.088085406 = weight(_text_:wide in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088085406 = score(doc=5129,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.3916274 = fieldWeight in 5129, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5129)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    States that it can be shown that claims of a lack of theories of citation are also indicative of a great need for a theory which links science dynamics and measurement. There is a wide gap between qualitative (science dynamics) and quantitative (measurement) approaches. To link them, proposes the use of the citation system, that potentially bridges a gap between measurement and epistemology, by applying system theory to the publication system
  7. Wildner, B.: Web of Science - Scopus : Auf der Suche nach Zitierungen (2006) 0.03 
    0.026979862 = product of:
  0.08093958 = sum of:
    0.08093958 = sum of:
      0.053428486 = weight(_text_:web in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053428486 = score(doc=5034,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 5034, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5034)
      0.027511096 = weight(_text_:22 in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027511096 = score(doc=5034,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5034, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5034)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Evaluation ist an der Medizinischen Universität Wien ein wichtiges Thema. So werden die Ressourcen innerhalb der Universität entsprechend der in den Leistungskriterien definierten Bewertungsmethode verteilt, deren Grundlage ein für jeden Fachbereich eigens berechneter normierter Impact Factor darstellt. Wissenschaftliche Leistung kann aber auch auf andere Art gemessen werden. Innerhalb einer Universitätsklinik oder Forschungsgruppe werden die Publikationen der wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiter mittels Zitierungsanalyse bewertet. Für eine Bewerbung auf bestimmte Stellen müssen die einzelnen Wissenschaftler jeweils aktuelle Zitierungsanalysen vorlegen. Seit 2005 stellt die Universitätsbibliothek der Medizinischen Universität Wien am Campus die Datenbank Scopus zur Verfügung. Dabei handelt es sich nicht nur um eine weitere naturwissenschaftliche Literaturdatenbank, sondern um ein Konkurrenzprodukt zum Web of Science, dessen Schwerpunkt in der Suche der Referenzfelder liegt und so die Beantwortung der Fragestellung, wie oft eine wissenschaftliche Publikation zitiert wird, ermöglicht. Im seltenen Idealfall liegt eine vollständige Publikationsliste vor, von der ausgehend man eine Zitierungsanalyse starten kann. Meist aber besteht der Wunsch, nur anhand eines Autorennamens und dem Wissen, in welchem Fachgebiet jemand wissenschaftlich tätig ist, rasch die Suche nach Zitierungen zu beginnen. Im Web of Science führt der Weg über eine Cited Reference Search zu einem Cited Reference Index, aus dem man die Zitierzahlen (Times Cited) zu den einzelnen Publikationen eines Autors entnehmen kann. Als Cited Author scheinen neben dem Erstautor auch alle Mitautoren auf, vorausgesetzt die Zitierung bezieht sich auf eine Publikation, die als Source Item im Web of Science in dem Zeitraum erscheint, der für die Institution subskribiert wurde. Abschließend müssen die einzelnen Zitierzahlen eigenhändig addiert werden und ergeben so die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen für einen bestimmten Autor. In Scopus wird nach einer Autorensuche ein Document Citation Overview geboten, der die Publikationen nach Erscheinungsjahr gereiht auflistet und gleichzeitig in einer Übersichtstabelle die Zitierzahlen pro Publikation und Jahr sowie die jeweiligen Gesamtzahlen angibt.
    Date
    4. 6.2006 17:22:15
    Object
    Web of Science
  8. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.03 
    0.0255426 = product of:
  0.0766278 = sum of:
    0.0766278 = sum of:
      0.04223893 = weight(_text_:web in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04223893 = score(doc=1934,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
      0.03438887 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03438887 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Um sich einer Antwort auf die Frage anzunähern, welche Bedeutung der Nachlass eines Wissenschaftlers wie jener Paul F. Lazarsfelds (mit zahlreichen noch unveröffentlichten Schriften) für die aktuelle Forschung haben könne, kann untersucht werden, wie häufig dieser Wissenschaftler zitiert wird. Wenn ein Autor zitiert wird, wird er auch genutzt. Wird er über einen langen Zeitraum oft genutzt, ist vermutlich auch die Auseinandersetzung mit seinem Nachlass von Nutzen. Außerdem kann aufgrund der Zitierungen festgestellt werden, was aus dem Lebenswerk eines Wissenschaftlers für die aktuelle Forschung relevant erscheint. Daraus können die vordringlichen Fragestellungen in der Bearbeitung des Nachlasses abgeleitet werden. Die Aufgabe für die folgende Untersuchung lautete daher: Wie oft wird Paul F. Lazarsfeld zitiert? Dabei interessierte auch: Wer zitiert wo? Die Untersuchung wurde mit Hilfe der Meta-Datenbank "ISI Web of Knowledge" durchgeführt. In dieser wurde im "Web of Science" mit dem Werkzeug "Cited Reference Search" nach dem zitierten Autor (Cited Author) "Lazarsfeld P*" gesucht. Diese Suche ergab 1535 Referenzen (References). Werden alle Referenzen gewählt, führt dies zu 4839 Ergebnissen (Results). Dabei wurden die Datenbanken SCI-Expanded, SSCI und A&HCI verwendet. Bei dieser Suche wurden die Publikationsjahre 1941-2008 analysiert. Vor 1956 wurden allerdings nur sehr wenige Zitate gefunden: 1946 fünf, ansonsten maximal drei, 1942-1944 und 1949 überhaupt keines. Zudem ist das Jahr 2008 noch lange nicht zu Ende. (Es gab jedoch schon vor Ende März 24 Zitate!)
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12
  9. Huber, C.: Web of science (1999) 0.02 
    0.02252743 = product of:
  0.06758229 = sum of:
    0.06758229 = product of:
      0.13516457 = sum of:
        0.13516457 = weight(_text_:web in 3595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13516457 = score(doc=3595,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.8158776 = fieldWeight in 3595, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Object
    Web of science
  10. Shaw, W.M.: Subject and citation indexing : pt.1: the clustering structure of composite representations in the cystic fibrosis document collection (1991) 0.02 
    0.022021351 = product of:
  0.06606405 = sum of:
    0.06606405 = weight(_text_:wide in 4841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06606405 = score(doc=4841,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 4841, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4841)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The presence of clustering structure in the CF document collection (cystic fibrosis) is evaluated as a function of the exhaustivity of 5 composite representations. The composite representations are constructed from 2 subject descriptions, based on MeSH and subheadings, and 2 citation indexes, based on the complete set of references an and a comprehensive set of citations to each document. Experiment results reveal observable evidence of clustering structure diminishes as the exhaustivity of each representation is decreased. The representation composed of references and citations shows less evidence of clustering structure at the exhaustive level but more uniform evidence of clustering structure over a wide range of exhaustivity levels than composite representations that include subject descriptions. The structures imposed on the CF document collection by all composite representations satisfy the necessary condition for a meaningful clustering outcome
  11. Nederhof, A.J.; Visser, M.S.: Quantitative deconstruction of citation impact indicators : waxing field impact but waning journal impact (2004) 0.02 
    0.022021351 = product of:
  0.06606405 = sum of:
    0.06606405 = weight(_text_:wide in 4419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06606405 = score(doc=4419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 4419, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4419)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In two case studies of research units, reference values used to benchmark research performance appeared to show contradictory results: the average citation level in the subfields (FCSm) increased world-wide, while the citation level of the journals (JCSm) decreased, where concomitant changes were expected. Explanations were sought in: a shift in preference of document types; a change in publication preference for subfields; and changes in journal coverage. Publishing in newly covered journals with a low impact had a negative effect on impact ratios. However, the main factor behind the increase in FCSm was the distribution of articles across the five-year block periods that were studied. Publication in lower impact journals produced a lagging JCSm. Actual values of JCSm, FCSm, and citations per publication (CPP) values are not very informative either about research performance, or about the development of impact over time in a certain subfield with block indicators. Normalized citation impact indicators are free from such effects and should be consulted primarily in research performance assessments.
  12. Rosenberg, V.: ¬An assessment of ISI's new Web of Science : ISI's services brings citiation indexing to new and advanced researchers (1998) 0.02 
    0.01991162 = product of:
  0.059734862 = sum of:
    0.059734862 = product of:
      0.119469725 = sum of:
        0.119469725 = weight(_text_:web in 1885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.119469725 = score(doc=1885,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.72114074 = fieldWeight in 1885, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1885)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Comments on the affinity of Web technology and citation indexes and reviews the ISI service, Web of Science. Although still requiring refinement, it multiplies the effectiveness of an already effective search tool
    Object
    Web of Science
  13. Jiang, X.; Liu, J.: Extracting the evolutionary backbone of scientific domains : the semantic main path network analysis approach based on citation context analysis (2023) 0.02 
    0.018351128 = product of:
  0.055053383 = sum of:
    0.055053383 = weight(_text_:wide in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055053383 = score(doc=948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Main path analysis is a popular method for extracting the scientific backbone from the citation network of a research domain. Existing approaches ignored the semantic relationships between the citing and cited publications, resulting in several adverse issues, in terms of coherence of main paths and coverage of significant studies. This paper advocated the semantic main path network analysis approach to alleviate these issues based on citation function analysis. A wide variety of SciBERT-based deep learning models were designed for identifying citation functions. Semantic citation networks were built by either including important citations, for example, extension, motivation, usage and similarity, or excluding incidental citations like background and future work. Semantic main path network was built by merging the top-K main paths extracted from various time slices of semantic citation network. In addition, a three-way framework was proposed for the quantitative evaluation of main path analysis results. Both qualitative and quantitative analysis on three research areas of computational linguistics demonstrated that, compared to semantics-agnostic counterparts, different types of semantic main path networks provide complementary views of scientific knowledge flows. Combining them together, we obtained a more precise and comprehensive picture of domain evolution and uncover more coherent development pathways between scientific ideas.
  14. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Abdoli, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: In which fields are citations indicators of research quality? (2023) 0.02 
    0.018351128 = product of:
  0.055053383 = sum of:
    0.055053383 = weight(_text_:wide in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055053383 = score(doc=1033,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 1033, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1033)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Citation counts are widely used as indicators of research quality to support or replace human peer review and for lists of top cited papers, researchers, and institutions. Nevertheless, the relationship between citations and research quality is poorly evidenced. We report the first large-scale science-wide academic evaluation of the relationship between research quality and citations (field normalized citation counts), correlating them for 87,739 journal articles in 34 field-based UK Units of Assessment (UoA). The two correlate positively in all academic fields, from very weak (0.1) to strong (0.5), reflecting broadly linear relationships in all fields. We give the first evidence that the correlations are positive even across the arts and humanities. The patterns are similar for the field classification schemes of Scopus and Dimensions.ai, although varying for some individual subjects and therefore more uncertain for these. We also show for the first time that no field has a citation threshold beyond which all articles are excellent quality, so lists of top cited articles are not pure collections of excellence, and neither is any top citation percentile indicator. Thus, while appropriately field normalized citations associate positively with research quality in all fields, they never perfectly reflect it, even at high values.
  15. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.02 
    0.018340731 = product of:
  0.05502219 = sum of:
    0.05502219 = product of:
      0.11004438 = sum of:
        0.11004438 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11004438 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  16. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.02 
    0.018340731 = product of:
  0.05502219 = sum of:
    0.05502219 = product of:
      0.11004438 = sum of:
        0.11004438 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11004438 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    7. 2.2005 14:10:22
  17. Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003) 0.02 
    0.017948093 = product of:
  0.053844277 = sum of:
    0.053844277 = product of:
      0.10768855 = sum of:
        0.10768855 = weight(_text_:web in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10768855 = score(doc=5176,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.65002745 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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.
  18. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.02 
    0.017135015 = product of:
  0.051405042 = sum of:
    0.051405042 = sum of:
      0.023893945 = weight(_text_:web in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023893945 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.027511096 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027511096 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
  19. New Web Citation Index (2004) 0.02 
    0.01689557 = product of:
  0.05068671 = sum of:
    0.05068671 = product of:
      0.10137342 = sum of:
        0.10137342 = weight(_text_:web in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10137342 = score(doc=2270,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Philadelphia, PA USA-London UK-Princeton, NJ February, 25, 2004 - Today, Thomson ISI and NEC Laboratories America (NEC) announced their collaboration to create a comprehensive, multidisciplinary citation index for Web-based scholarly resources. The new Web Citation Index(tm) will combine a suite of technologies developed by NEC, including "autonomous citation indexing" tools from NEC's CiteSeer environment, with the capabilities underlying ISI Web of KnowledgeSM. Thomson ISI editors will carefully monitor the quality of this new resource to ensure all indexed material meets the Thomson ISI high-quality standards. During 2004, Thomson ISI and NEC will operate a pilot of the new resource to receive feedback from the scientific and scholarly community. Full access to the index is projected for early 2005. When fully operational, the new resource will be a unique content collection within ISI Web of Knowledge. It will complement the Thomson ISI Web of Science(r), and provide researchers with a new gateway to discovery 4/3 using citation relationships among Web-based documents, such as pre-prints, proceedings, and "open access" research publications.
    Object
    Web of Science
  20. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02 
    0.016211068 = product of:
  0.048633203 = sum of:
    0.048633203 = product of:
      0.097266406 = sum of:
        0.097266406 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097266406 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 63
  • d 12

Types

  • a 73
  • el 6
  • m 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes