-
He, Y.; Hui, S.C.: PubSearch : a Web citation-based retrieval system (2001)
0.14
0.1362795 = product of:
0.20441923 = sum of:
0.055176124 = weight(_text_:wide in 4806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055176124 = score(doc=4806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18785246 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = 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)
0.08466621 = weight(_text_:web in 4806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08466621 = score(doc=4806,freq=16.0), product of:
0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = 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)
0.051434137 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051434137 = score(doc=4806,freq=8.0), product of:
0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 4806, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4806)
0.01314276 = product of:
0.03942828 = sum of:
0.03942828 = weight(_text_:system in 4806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03942828 = score(doc=4806,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 4806, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4806)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.6666667 = coord(4/6)
- 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.
-
Cawkell, T.: Checking research progress on 'image retrieval by shape matching' using the Web of Science (1998)
0.03
0.03430649 = product of:
0.10291946 = sum of:
0.060488462 = weight(_text_:web in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060488462 = score(doc=3571,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 3571, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3571)
0.042430993 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042430993 = score(doc=3571,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 3571, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3571)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Discusses the Web of Science database recently introduced by ISI, and which is compiled from 8.000 journals covered in the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Briefly compares the database with the Citation Indexes as provided by the BIDS service at the University of Bath. Explores the characteristics and usefulness of the WoS through a search of it for articles on the topic of image retrieval by shape matching. Suggests that the selection of articles of interest is much easier and far quicker using the WoS than other methods of conducting a search using ISI's data
- Object
- Web of Science
-
Fujigaki, Y.: ¬The citation system : citation networks as repeatedly focusing on difference, continuous re-evaluation, and as persistent knowledge accumulation (1998)
0.03
0.03278347 = product of:
0.098350406 = sum of:
0.07356817 = weight(_text_:wide in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07356817 = score(doc=5129,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18785246 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = 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)
0.02478223 = product of:
0.074346684 = sum of:
0.074346684 = weight(_text_:system in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074346684 = score(doc=5129,freq=8.0), product of:
0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.5567675 = fieldWeight in 5129, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5129)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Araújo, P.C. de; Gutierres Castanha, R.C.; Hjoerland, B.: Citation indexing and indexes (2021)
0.03
0.028958794 = product of:
0.08687638 = sum of:
0.042333104 = weight(_text_:web in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042333104 = score(doc=444,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.04454327 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04454327 = score(doc=444,freq=6.0), product of:
0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.
- Object
- Web of Science
-
Gorraiz, J.: "Web of Science" versus "Scopus" oder das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliotheken (2006)
0.03
0.026175773 = product of:
0.07852732 = sum of:
0.06693452 = weight(_text_:web in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06693452 = score(doc=5021,freq=10.0), product of:
0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
0.011592798 = product of:
0.034778394 = sum of:
0.034778394 = weight(_text_:29 in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034778394 = score(doc=5021,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14914064 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Bei den nachfolgenden Ausführungen handelt es sich um eine Zusammenstellung von Kommentaren, Vorträgen und Rückmeldungen von Kollegen bzw. Benutzern der Bibliothek sowie meine eigenen Erfahrungen als Vortragender im Universitätslehrgang "Master of Science", in dessen Rahmen ich das Fach "Bibliometrie" unterrichte. Schwerpunkt dieses Beitrages ist eine Zusammenfassung der Diskussion "Web of Science versus Scopus", die den aktuellen Stand der Kontroverse (vor allem an der Universität Wien im naturwissenschaftlichen Sektor) widerspiegelt. Hier ist zu bemerken, dass diese Problematik auch fachspezifisch ist und deswegen an jeder Universität bzw. in jedem Fachgebiet anders zu betrachten ist. Startpunkt meiner Betrachtung ist die allgemein akzeptierte Notwendigkeit des "Journal of Citation Reports (JCR)". Nur in diesem bibliometrischen Verzeichnis sind derzeit die "Impact Factors" zu finden, die als Grundlage jeder akademischen Evaluation dienen. Deswegen ist JCR heutzutage an jeder Universität mit naturwissenschaftlichen Fächern unentbehrlich und das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliothekare lautet nicht wirklich "Web of Science versus Scopus", sondern genaugesagt "Fallbeispiel A: Web of Science &JCR" oder "Fallbeispiel B: Scopus &JCR".
- Date
- 4. 6.2006 17:36:29
- Object
- Web of Science
-
Davis, P.M.; Cohen, S.A.: ¬The effect of the Web on undergraduate citation behavior 1996-1999 (2001)
0.02
0.023820281 = product of:
0.07146084 = sum of:
0.059868045 = weight(_text_:web in 5768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059868045 = score(doc=5768,freq=8.0), product of:
0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 5768, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5768)
0.011592798 = product of:
0.034778394 = sum of:
0.034778394 = weight(_text_:29 in 5768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034778394 = score(doc=5768,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14914064 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5768, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5768)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
- Date
- 29. 9.2001 14:01:09
-
Zhao, D.: Challenges of scholarly publications on the Web to the evaluation of science : a comparison of author visibility on the Web and in print journals (2005)
0.02
0.023776896 = product of:
0.07133069 = sum of:
0.060488462 = weight(_text_:web in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060488462 = score(doc=1065,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
0.010842225 = product of:
0.032526672 = sum of:
0.032526672 = weight(_text_:system in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032526672 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This article reveals different patterns of scholarly communication in the XML research field on the Web and in print journals in terms of author visibility, and challenges the common practice of exclusively using the ISI's databases to obtain citation counts as scientific performance indicators. Results from this study demonstrate both the importance and the feasibility of the use of multiple citation data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication, and provide evidence for a developing "two tier" scholarly communication system.
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.02
0.022379868 = product of:
0.044759735 = sum of:
0.019956015 = weight(_text_:web in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019956015 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = 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)
0.017144712 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017144712 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.0076590087 = product of:
0.022977026 = sum of:
0.022977026 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022977026 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14846832 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = 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)
0.5 = coord(3/6)
- 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
-
Pao, M.L.: Term and citation retrieval : a field study (1993)
0.02
0.021316543 = product of:
0.06394963 = sum of:
0.048492566 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048492566 = score(doc=3741,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 3741, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3741)
0.015457064 = product of:
0.04637119 = sum of:
0.04637119 = weight(_text_:29 in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04637119 = score(doc=3741,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14914064 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3741, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3741)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Investigates the relative efficacy of searching by terms and by citations in searches collected in health science libraries. In pilot and field studies the odds that overlap items retrieved would be relevant or partially relevant were greatly improved. In the field setting citation searching was able to add average of 24% recall to traditional subject retrieval. Attempts to identify distinguishing characteristics in queries which might benefit most from additional citation searches proved inclusive. Online access of citation databases has been hampered by their high cost
- Source
- Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.1, S.95-112
-
Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A.: Can citation analysis of Web publications better detect research fronts? (2007)
0.02
0.021174401 = product of:
0.0635232 = sum of:
0.05577876 = weight(_text_:web in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05577876 = score(doc=471,freq=10.0), product of:
0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
0.007744446 = product of:
0.023233337 = sum of:
0.023233337 = weight(_text_:system in 471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023233337 = score(doc=471,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 471, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=471)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- We present evidence that in some research fields, research published in journals and reported on the Web may collectively represent different evolutionary stages of the field, with journals lagging a few years behind the Web on average, and that a "two-tier" scholarly communication system may therefore be evolving. We conclude that in such fields, (a) for detecting current research fronts, author co-citation analyses (ACA) using articles published on the Web as a data source can outperform traditional ACAs using articles published in journals as data, and that (b) as a result, it is important to use multiple data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication for a complete picture of communication patterns. Our evidence stems from comparing the respective intellectual structures of the XML research field, a subfield of computer science, as revealed from three sets of ACA covering two time periods: (a) from the field's beginnings in 1996 to 2001, and (b) from 2001 to 2006. For the first time period, we analyze research articles both from journals as indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) and from the Web as indexed by CiteSeer. We follow up by an ACA of SCI data for the second time period. We find that most trends in the evolution of this field from the first to the second time period that we find when comparing ACA results from the SCI between the two time periods already were apparent in the ACA results from CiteSeer during the first time period.
-
H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008)
0.02
0.02111192 = product of:
0.06333576 = sum of:
0.051847253 = weight(_text_:web in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051847253 = score(doc=590,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = 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)
0.011488512 = product of:
0.034465536 = sum of:
0.034465536 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034465536 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14846832 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020)
0.02
0.02093063 = product of:
0.062791884 = sum of:
0.04938862 = weight(_text_:web in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04938862 = score(doc=40,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = 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)
0.013403265 = product of:
0.040209793 = sum of:
0.040209793 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040209793 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14846832 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Huber, C.: Web of science (1999)
0.02
0.018814713 = product of:
0.11288828 = sum of:
0.11288828 = weight(_text_:web in 3595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11288828 = score(doc=3595,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Object
- Web of science
-
Marion, L.S.; McCain, K.W.: Contrasting views of software engineering journals : author cocitation choices and indexer vocabulary assignments (2001)
0.02
0.018747037 = product of:
0.05624111 = sum of:
0.02143089 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02143089 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
0.034810223 = product of:
0.05221533 = sum of:
0.023233337 = weight(_text_:system in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023233337 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
0.028981995 = weight(_text_:29 in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028981995 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14914064 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5767, 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=5767)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- We explore the intellectual subject structure and research themes in software engineering through the identification and analysis of a core journal literature. We examine this literature via two expert perspectives: that of the author, who identified significant work by citing it (journal cocitation analysis), and that of the professional indexer, who tags published work with subject terms to facilitate retrieval from a bibliographic database (subject profile analysis). The data sources are SCISEARCH (the on-line version of Science Citation Index), and INSPEC (a database covering software engineering, computer science, and information systems). We use data visualization tools (cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and PFNets) to show the "intellectual maps" of software engineering. Cocitation and subject profile analyses demonstrate that software engineering is a distinct interdisciplinary field, valuing practical and applied aspects, and spanning a subject continuum from "programming-in-the-smalI" to "programming-in-the-large." This continuum mirrors the software development life cycle by taking the operating system or major application from initial programming through project management, implementation, and maintenance. Object orientation is an integral but distinct subject area in software engineering. Key differences are the importance of management and programming: (1) cocitation analysis emphasizes project management and systems development; (2) programming techniques/languages are more influential in subject profiles; (3) cocitation profiles place object-oriented journals separately and centrally while the subject profile analysis locates these journals with the programming/languages group
- Date
- 29. 9.2001 14:01:01
-
Tho, Q.T.; Hui, S.C.; Fong, A.C.M.: ¬A citation-based document retrieval system for finding research expertise (2007)
0.02
0.018318698 = product of:
0.054956093 = sum of:
0.036369424 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036369424 = score(doc=956,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 956, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=956)
0.018586671 = product of:
0.05576001 = sum of:
0.05576001 = weight(_text_:system in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05576001 = score(doc=956,freq=8.0), product of:
0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.41757566 = fieldWeight in 956, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=956)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Current citation-based document retrieval systems generally offer only limited search facilities, such as author search. In order to facilitate more advanced search functions, we have developed a significantly improved system that employs two novel techniques: Context-based Cluster Analysis (CCA) and Context-based Ontology Generation frAmework (COGA). CCA aims to extract relevant information from clusters originally obtained from disparate clustering methods by building relationships between them. The built relationships are then represented as formal context using the Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) technique. COGA aims to generate ontology from clusters relationship built by CCA. By combining these two techniques, we are able to perform ontology learning from a citation database using clustering results. We have implemented the improved system and have demonstrated its use for finding research domain expertise. We have also conducted performance evaluation on the system and the results are encouraging.
-
Wildner, B.: Web of Science - Scopus : Auf der Suche nach Zitierungen (2006)
0.02
0.01742734 = product of:
0.05228202 = sum of:
0.04462301 = weight(_text_:web in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04462301 = score(doc=5034,freq=10.0), product of:
0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = 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)
0.0076590087 = product of:
0.022977026 = sum of:
0.022977026 = weight(_text_:22 in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022977026 = score(doc=5034,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14846832 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
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
0.016630014 = product of:
0.09978008 = sum of:
0.09978008 = weight(_text_:web in 1885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09978008 = score(doc=1885,freq=8.0), product of:
0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- 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
-
Sidiropoulos, A.; Manolopoulos, Y.: ¬A new perspective to automatically rank scientific conferences using digital libraries (2005)
0.02
0.016173564 = product of:
0.04852069 = sum of:
0.029934023 = weight(_text_:web in 1011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029934023 = score(doc=1011,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1011, 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=1011)
0.018586671 = product of:
0.05576001 = sum of:
0.05576001 = weight(_text_:system in 1011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05576001 = score(doc=1011,freq=8.0), product of:
0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.41757566 = fieldWeight in 1011, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1011)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Citation analysis is performed in order to evaluate authors and scientific collections, such as journals and conference proceedings. Currently, two major systems exist that perform citation analysis: Science Citation Index (SCI) by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and CiteSeer by the NEC Research Institute. The SCI, mostly a manual system up until recently, is based on the notion of the ISI Impact Factor, which has been used extensively for citation analysis purposes. On the other hand the CiteSeer system is an automatically built digital library using agents technology, also based on the notion of ISI Impact Factor. In this paper, we investigate new alternative notions besides the ISI impact factor, in order to provide a novel approach aiming at ranking scientific collections. Furthermore, we present a web-based system that has been built by extracting data from the Databases and Logic Programming (DBLP) website of the University of Trier. Our system, by using the new citation metrics, emerges as a useful tool for ranking scientific collections. In this respect, some first remarks are presented, e.g. on ranking conferences related to databases.
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.02
0.015393745 = product of:
0.046181235 = sum of:
0.029934023 = weight(_text_:web in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029934023 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = 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)
0.016247213 = product of:
0.048741635 = sum of:
0.048741635 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048741635 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14846832 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Pao, M.L.; Worthen, D.B.: Retrieval effectiveness by semantic and citation searching (1989)
0.02
0.015220921 = product of:
0.04566276 = sum of:
0.036369424 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036369424 = score(doc=2288,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
0.0092933355 = product of:
0.027880006 = sum of:
0.027880006 = weight(_text_:system in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027880006 = score(doc=2288,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.042397358 = queryNorm
0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- A pilot study on the relative retrieval effectiveness of semantic relevance (by terms) and pragmatic relevance (by citations) is reported. A single database has been constructed to provide access by both descriptors and cited references. For each question from a set of queries, two equivalent sets were retrieved. All retrieved items were evaluated by subject experts for relevance to their originating queries. We conclude that there are essentially two types of relevance at work resulting in two different sets of documents. Using both search methods to create a union set is likely to increase recall. Those few retrieved by the intersection of the two methods tend to result in higher precision. Suggestions are made to develop a front-end system to display the overlapping items for higher precision and to manipulate and rank the union set sets retrieved by the two search modes for improved output
