Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008496759 = product of:
  0.042483795 = sum of:
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2757, 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=2757)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:59:25

0.008496759 = product of:
  0.042483795 = sum of:
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 654, 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=654)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2013 16:21:09

0.008366001 = product of:
  0.041830003 = sum of:
    0.041830003 = weight(_text_:it in 5586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041830003 = score(doc=5586,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27674085 = fieldWeight in 5586, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5586)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to propose a multiple set of journal evaluation indicators using methods and theories from author analysis. Among those are the journal citation identity and the journal citation image. Design/methodology/approach - The Journal of Documentation is celebrating its 60th anniversary, and for that reason it is portrayed in a bibliometric study using the two indicators, based, e.g. on analyses of references in journal articles and journal co-citation analyses. Findings - The Journal of Documentation, which is portrayed in this study is characterized by high impact and high visibility. It publishes a relatively low number of documents with scientific content compared to other journals in the same field. It reaches far into the scientific community and belongs to a field that is more and more visible. The journal is relatively closely bounded to Western Europe, which is an increasing tendency. Research limitations/implications - The research is based on analyses of just three LIS journals. Practical implications - Journal citation identity and the journal citation image indicators contribute in giving a more detailed multifaceted picture of a single journal. Originality/value - The multiple set of indicators give rise to a journal evaluation of a more qualitative nature.

0.008196974 = product of:
  0.04098487 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 4210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=4210,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 4210, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4210)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The greatest number of open access journals (OAJs) is found in the sciences and their influence is growing. However, there are only a few studies on the acceptance and thereby integration of these OAJs in the scholarly communication system. Even fewer studies provide insight into the differences across disciplines. This study is an analysis of the citing behaviour in journals within three science fields: biology, mathematics, and pharmacy and pharmacology. It is a statistical analysis of OAJs as well as non-OAJs including both the citing and cited side of the journal to journal citations. The multivariate linear regression reveals many similarities in citing behaviour across fields and media. But it also points to great differences in the integration of OAJs. The integration of OAJs in the scholarly communication system varies considerably across fields. The implications for bibliometric research are discussed.

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=3264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 3264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3264)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this paper we address the various formulations of impact of articles, usually groups of articles as gauged by citations that these articles receive over a certain period of time. The journal impact factor, as published by ISI (Philadelphia, PA), is the best-known example of a formulation of impact of journals (considered as a set of articles) but many others have been defined in the literature. Impact factors have varying publication and citation periods and the chosen length of these periods enables, e.g., a distinction between synchronous and diachronous impact factors. It is shown how an impact factor for the general case can be defined. Two alternatives for a general impact factor are proposed, depending an whether different publication years are seen as a whole, and hence treating each one of them differently, or by operating with citation periods of identical length but allowing each publication period different starting points.

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=678)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper shows that the measure of diffusion introduced by Ian Rowlands called the journal diffusion factor (JDF) is highly negatively correlated with the number of citations, leading highly cited journals to get a low JDF, whereas less cited journals get a high JDF. This property reduces the utility of the JDF as a tool for evaluation of research influence. The paper presents a new definition of the JDF in order to attempt to improve it. This new JDF corrects the strong correlation with the number cited, but has a strongly statistically positive correlation with journal impact factors (JIF). However, the new JDF may still be used as an evaluation tool since, for journals with similar JIF values, the new JDF can be used to differentiate between them. Thereby, journal evaluation will be based on more than one aspect of journal influence when assessing journal influence with similar journal impact factor values.

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 4361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=4361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 4361, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4361)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Flattery citations of editors, potential referees, and so on have been claimed to be a common strategy among academic authors. From a sociology of science perspective as well as from a citation analytical perspective, it is both an interesting claim and a consequential one. The article presents a citation analysis of the editorial board members entering the American Economic Review from 1984 to 2004 using a citation window of 11 years. To test the flattery citation hypothesis further, we have conducted a study applying the difference-in-differences estimator. We analyze the number of times the editors and editorial board members of the American Economic Review were cited in articles published in the journal itself as well as in a pool of documents comprising articles from the Journal of Political Economy and the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The results of the analyses do not support the existence of a flattery citation effect.

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 3601, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3601)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Citation frequencies are commonly interpreted as measures of quality or impact. Yet, the true nature of citations and their proper interpretation have been the center of a long, but still unresolved discussion in Bibliometrics. A comparison of 67,578 pairs of studies on the same healthcare topic, with the same publication age (1-15 years) reveals that when one of the studies is being selected for citation, it has on average received about three times as many citations as the other study. However, the average citation-gap between selected or deselected studies narrows slightly over time, which fits poorly with the name-dropping interpretation and better with the quality and impact-interpretation. The results demonstrate that authors in the field of Healthcare tend to cite highly cited documents when they have a choice. This is more likely caused by differences related to quality than differences related to status of the publications cited.

0.004830113 = product of:
  0.024150565 = sum of:
    0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 5587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024150565 = score(doc=5587,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 5587, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5587)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to clarify earlier work on journal diffusion metrics. Classical journal indicators such as the Garfield impact factor do not measure the breadth of influence across the literature of a particular journal title. As a new approach to measuring research influence, the study complements these existing metrics with a series of formally described diffusion factors. Design/methodology/approach - Using a publication-citation matrix as an organising construct, the paper develops formal descriptions of two forms of diffusion metric: "relative diffusion factors" and "journal diffusion factors" in both their synchronous and diachronous forms. It also provides worked examples for selected library and information science and economics journals, plus a sample of health information papers to illustrate their construction and use. Findings - Diffusion factors capture different aspects of the citation reception process than existing bibliometric measures. The paper shows that diffusion factors can be applied at the whole journal level or for sets of articles and that they provide a richer evidence base for citation analyses than traditional measures alone. Research limitations/implications - The focus of this paper is on clarifying the concepts underlying diffusion factors and there is unlimited scope for further work to apply these metrics to much larger and more comprehensive data sets than has been attempted here. Practical implications - These new tools extend the range of tools available for bibliometric, and possibly webometric, analysis. Diffusion factors might find particular application in studies where the research questions focus on the dynamic aspects of innovation and knowledge transfer. Originality/value - This paper will be of interest to those with theoretical interests in informetric distributions as well as those interested in science policy and innovation studies.