Search (107 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Huntington, P.; Nicholas, D.; Jamali, H.R.; Tenopir, C.: Article decay in the digital environment : an analysis of usage of OhioLINK by date of publication, employing deep log methods (2006) 0.09 
    0.08621432 = product of:
  0.11495243 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=214,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 214, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=214)
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=214,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 214, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=214)
    0.034882743 = product of:
      0.069765486 = sum of:
        0.069765486 = weight(_text_:project in 214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069765486 = score(doc=214,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32976416 = fieldWeight in 214, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=214)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    The article presents the early findings of an exploratory deep log analysis of journal usage on OhioLINK, conducted as part of the MaxData project, funded by the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services. OhioLINK, the original Big Deal, provides a single digital platform of nearly 6,000 full-text journals for more than 600,000 people; for the purposes of the analysis, the raw logs were obtained from OhioLINK for the period June 2004 to December 2004. During this period approximately 1,215,000 items were viewed on campus in October 2004 and 1,894,000 items viewed off campus between June and December 2004. This article provides an analysis of the age of material that users consulted. From a methodological point of view OhioLINK offered an attractive platform to conduct age of publication usage studies because it is one of the oldest e-journal libraries and thus offered a relatively long archive and stable platform to conduct the studies. The project sought to determine whether the subject, the search approach adopted, and the type of journal item viewed (contents page, abstract, full-text article, etc.) was a factor in regard to the age of articles used.
  2. Haycock, L.A.: Citation analysis of education dissertations for collection development (2004) 0.08 
    0.078474775 = product of:
  0.15694955 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=135,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
    0.12446317 = sum of:
      0.083718576 = weight(_text_:project in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.083718576 = score(doc=135,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050121464 = queryNorm
          0.39571697 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
      0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0407446 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050121464 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, 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=135)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The reference lists of forty-three education dissertations on curriculum and instruction completed at the University of Minnesota during the calendar years 2000-2002 were analyzed to inform collection development. As one measure of use of the academic library collection, the citation analysis yielded data to guide journal selection, retention, and cancellation decisions. The project aimed to ensure that the most frequently cited journals were retained on subscription. The serial monograph ratio for citation also was evaluated in comparison with other studies and explored in the context of funding ratios. Results of citation studies can provide a basis for liaison conversations with faculty in addition to guiding selection decisions. This research project can serve as a model for similar projects in other libraries that look at literature in education as well as other fields.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 48(2004) no.2, S.102-106
  3. Couto, T.; Cristo, M.; Gonçalves, M.A.; Calado, P.; Ziviani, N.; Moura, E.; Ribeiro-Neto, B.: ¬A comparative study of citations and links in document classification (2006) 0.07 
    0.07190703 = product of:
  0.14381406 = sum of:
    0.10552849 = weight(_text_:digital in 2531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10552849 = score(doc=2531,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.5337628 = fieldWeight in 2531, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2531)
    0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 2531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03828556 = score(doc=2531,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 2531, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2531)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    It is well known that links are an important source of information when dealing with Web collections. However, the question remains on whether the same techniques that are used on the Web can be applied to collections of documents containing citations between scientific papers. In this work we present a comparative study of digital library citations and Web links, in the context of automatic text classification. We show that there are in fact differences between citations and links in this context. For the comparison, we run a series of experiments using a digital library of computer science papers and a Web directory. In our reference collections, measures based on co-citation tend to perform better for pages in the Web directory, with gains up to 37% over text based classifiers, while measures based on bibliographic coupling perform better in a digital library. We also propose a simple and effective way of combining a traditional text based classifier with a citation-link based classifier. This combination is based on the notion of classifier reliability and presented gains of up to 14% in micro-averaged F1 in the Web collection. However, no significant gain was obtained in the digital library. Finally, a user study was performed to further investigate the causes for these results. We discovered that misclassifications by the citation-link based classifiers are in fact difficult cases, hard to classify even for humans.
    Source
    International Conference on Digital Libraries: Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
  4. Sidiropoulos, A.; Manolopoulos, Y.: ¬A new perspective to automatically rank scientific conferences using digital libraries (2005) 0.05 
    0.048041813 = product of:
  0.096083626 = sum of:
    0.073112294 = weight(_text_:digital in 1011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073112294 = score(doc=1011,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 1011, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1011)
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 1011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=1011,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 1011, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1011)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  5. Ball, R.: Wissenschaftsindikatoren im Zeitalter digitaler Wissenschaft (2007) 0.05 
    0.045798417 = product of:
  0.091596834 = sum of:
    0.07461992 = weight(_text_:digital in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07461992 = score(doc=875,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.37742734 = fieldWeight in 875, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=875)
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 875, 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=875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Die Bereitstellung und Nutzung digitaler Bibliotheken entwickelt sich allmählich zum Standard der Literatur und Informationsversorgung in Wissenschaft und Forschung. Ganzen Disziplinen genügt oftmals die verfügbare digitale Information, Printmedien werden besonders im STM-Segment zu einem Nischenprodukt. Digitale Texte können beliebig eingebaut, kopiert und nachgenutzt werden, die Verlinkung zwischen Metadaten und Volltexten bringt weitere Nutzungsvorteile. Dabei sind die Angebote von Digital Libraries Bestandteil eines ganzheitlichen digitalen Ansatzes, wonach die elektronische Informations- und Literaturversorgung integraler Bestandteil von E-Science (Enhanced Science) oder Cyberinfrastructure darstellt. Hierbei verschmelzen dann Produktion, Diskussion, Distribution und Rezeption der wissenschaftlichen Inhalte auf einer einzigen digitalen Plattform. Damit sind dann nicht nur die Literatur- und Informationsversorgung (Digital Libraries), sondern auch die Wissenschaft selbst digital geworden. Diese dramatische Veränderung in der Wissenschaftskommunikation hat direkte Auswirkungen auf die Messung der Wissenschaftskommunikation, also auf die Evaluation von wissenschaftlichem Output. Bisherige Systeme der Wissenschaftsvermessung basieren hauptsächlich auf bibliometrischen Analysen, d.h. der Quantifizierung des Outputs und dessen Rezeption (Zitierhäufigkeit). Basis dafür sind insbesondere im STM-Bereich die international anerkannten Datenbanken des ISI (Thomson Scientific) insbesondere der Science Citation Index, SCI) oder vielleicht zukünftig das Konkurrenzprodukt SCOPUS des Wissenschaftskonzerns Reed Elsevier. Die Digitalisierung der Wissenschaft in ihrem kompletten Lebenszyklus, die zunehmende Nutzung und Akzeptanz von Dokumentenrepositorien, Institutsservern und anderen elektronischen Publikationsformen im Rahmen von E-Science erfordern und ermöglichen zugleich den Nachweis von Output und Rezeption durch neue bibliometrische Formen, etwa der Webometrie (Webmetrics). Im vorliegenden Paper haben wir hierzu Analysen durchgeführt und stellen eine Abschätzung vor, wie sich der Anteil von webometrisch erfassbarer und zugänglicher wissenschaftlicher Literatur im Vergleich zu Literatur, die mit den Standardsystemen nachgewiesen werden kann im Laufe der letzten Jahre verändert hat. Dabei haben wir unterschiedliche Disziplinen und Länder berücksichtigt. Zudem wird ein Vergleich der webometrischen Nachweisqualität so unterschiedlicher Systeme wie SCI, SCOPUS und Google Scholar vorgestellt.
    Date
    23.12.2007 19:22:21
  6. Thelwall, M.: Bibliometrics to webometrics (2009) 0.04 
    0.043557227 = product of:
  0.08711445 = sum of:
    0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060314562 = score(doc=4239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 4239, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4239)
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=4239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 4239, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4239)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Bibliometrics has changed out of all recognition since 1958; becoming established as a field, being taught widely in library and information science schools, and being at the core of a number of science evaluation research groups around the world. This was all made possible by the work of Eugene Garfield and his Science Citation Index. This article reviews the distance that bibliometrics has travelled since 1958 by comparing early bibliometrics with current practice, and by giving an overview of a range of recent developments, such as patent analysis, national research evaluation exercises, visualization techniques, new applications, online citation indexes, and the creation of digital libraries. Webometrics, a modern, fast-growing offshoot of bibliometrics, is reviewed in detail. Finally, future prospects are discussed with regard to both bibliometrics and webometrics.
  7. Coleman, A.: Self-archiving and the copyright transfer agreements of ISI-ranked library and information science journals : analytic advantages (2007) 0.04 
    0.038119048 = product of:
  0.076238096 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 72) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=72,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 72, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=72)
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 72) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=72,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 72, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=72)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    A study of Thomson-Scientific ISI ranked Library and Information Science (LIS) journals (n=52) is reported. The study examined the stances of publishers as expressed in the Copyright Transfer Agreements (CTAs) of the journals toward self-archiving, the practice of depositing digital copies of one's works in an Open Archives Initiative (OAI)-compliant open access repository. Sixty-two percent (32) do not make their CTAs available on the open Web; 38% (20) do. Of the 38% that do make CTAs available, two are open access journals. Of the 62% that do not have a publicly available CTA, 40% are silent about self-archiving. Even among the 20 journal CTAs publicly available there is a high level of ambiguity. Closer examination augmented by publisher policy documents on copyright, self-archiving, and instructions to authors reveals that only five, 10% of the ISI-ranked LIS journals in the study, actually prohibit self-archiving by publisher rule. Copyright is a moving target, but publishers appear to be acknowledging that copyright and open access can co-exist in scholarly journal publishing. The ambivalence of LIS journal publishers provides unique opportunities to members of the community. Authors can self-archive in open access archives. A societyled, global scholarly communication consortium can engage in the strategic building of the LIS information commons. Aggregating OAI-compliant archives and developing disciplinary-specific library services for an LIS commons has the potential to increase the field's research impact and visibility. It may also ameliorate its own scholarly communication and publishing systems and serve as a model for others.
  8. Vakkari, P.: Perceived influence of the use of electronic information resources on scholarly work and publication productivity (2008) 0.04 
    0.037334766 = product of:
  0.07466953 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 1380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=1380,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 1380, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1380)
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 1380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=1380,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 1380, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1380)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This study explores how the use of electronic information resources has influenced scholars' opinion of their work, and how this is connected to their publication productivity. The data consist of a nationwide Web-based survey of the end-users of FinELib, the Finnish Electronic Library, at all universities in Finland. Scholars feel that the use of electronic literature has improved their work considerably in several ways. This influence can be differentiated into two dimensions. The first one is improved accessibility and availability of literature, and the second is more directly related to the content and quality of scholarly work. The perceived improved access is positively associated with the number of international publications produced, among doctoral students in particular. The more direct influence of e-resource use on the content of scholarly work is, however, not associated with publication productivity. The results seem to imply that investments in academic digital libraries are beneficial for the researchers and for the universities.
  9. Sugimoto, C.R.; Pratt , J.A.; Hauser, K.: Using field cocitation analysis to assess reciprocal and shared impact of LIS/MIS fields (2008) 0.04 
    0.037334766 = product of:
  0.07466953 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 1959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=1959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 1959, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1959)
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 1959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=1959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 1959, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1959)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This study utilized bibliometric tools to analyze the relationship between two separate, but related, fields: Library and Information Science (LIS) and Management Information Systems (MIS). The top-ranked 48 journals in each field were used as the unit of analysis. Using these journals, field cocitation was introduced as a method for evaluating the relationships between the two fields. The three-phased study evaluated (a) the knowledge imported/exported between LIS and MIS, (b) the body of knowledge influenced by both fields, and (c) the overlap in fields as demonstrated by multidimensional scaling. Data collection and analysis were performed using DIALOG and SPSS programs. The primary findings from this study indicate that (a) the MIS impact on LIS is greater than the reverse, (b) there is a growing trend for shared impact between the two disciplines, and (c) the area of overlap between the two fields is predominately those journals focusing on technology systems and digital information. Additionally, this study validated field cocitation as a method by which to evaluate relationships between fields.
  10. Thelwall, M.: Webometrics (2009) 0.04 
    0.037334766 = product of:
  0.07466953 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 3906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=3906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 3906, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3906)
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 3906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=3906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 3906, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3906)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Webometrics is an information science field concerned with measuring aspects of the World Wide Web (WWW) for a variety of information science research goals. It came into existence about five years after the Web was formed and has since grown to become a significant aspect of information science, at least in terms of published research. Although some webometrics research has focused on the structure or evolution of the Web itself or the performance of commercial search engines, most has used data from the Web to shed light on information provision or online communication in various contexts. Most prominently, techniques have been developed to track, map, and assess Web-based informal scholarly communication, for example, in terms of the hyperlinks between academic Web sites or the online impact of digital repositories. In addition, a range of nonacademic issues and groups of Web users have also been analyzed.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  11. Joint, N.: Bemused by bibliometrics : using citation analysis to evaluate research quality (2008) 0.04 
    0.0350769 = product of:
  0.0701538 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=1900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=1900,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which library and information science (LIS) issues have been handled in the formulation of recent UK Higher Education policy concerned with research quality evaluation. Design/methodology/approach - A chronological review of decision making about digital rights arrangements for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and of recent announcements about the new shape of metrics-based assessment in the Research Excellence Framework, which supersedes the RAE. Against this chronological framework, the likely nature of LIS practitioner reactions to the flow of decision making is suggested. Findings - It was found that a weak grasp of LIS issues by decision makers undermines the process whereby effective research evaluation models are created. LIS professional opinion should be sampled before key decisions are made. Research limitations/implications - This paper makes no sophisticated comments on the complex research issues underlying advanced bibliometric research evaluation models. It does point out that sophisticated and expensive bibliometric consultancies arrive at many conclusions about metrics-based research assessment that are common knowledge amongst LIS practitioners. Practical implications - Practical difficulties arise when one announces a decision to move to a new and specific type of research evaluation indicator before one has worked out anything very specific about that indicator. Originality/value - In this paper, the importance of information management issues to the mainstream issues of government and public administration is underlined. The most valuable conclusion of this paper is that, because LIS issues are now at the heart of democratic decision making, LIS practitioners and professionals should be given some sort of role in advising on such matters.
    Source
    Library review. 57(2008) no.5, S.346-357
  12. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.03 
    0.025540482 = product of:
  0.051080965 = sum of:
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.024008986 = product of:
      0.04801797 = sum of:
        0.04801797 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04801797 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 12:43:51
  13. Mukherjee, B.: Do open-access journals in library and information science have any scholarly impact? : a bibliometric study of selected open-access journals using Google Scholar (2009) 0.02 
    0.022024449 = product of:
  0.044048898 = sum of:
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=2745,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2745, 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=2745)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Using 17 fully open-access journals published uninterruptedly during 2000 to 2004 in the field of library and information science, the present study investigates the impact of these open-access journals in terms of quantity of articles published, subject distribution of the articles, synchronous and diachronous impact factor, immediacy index, and journals' and authors' self-citation. The results indicate that during this 5-year publication period, there are as many as 1,636 articles published by these journals. At the same time, the articles have received a total of 8,591 Web citations during a 7-year citation period. Eight of 17 journals have received more than 100 citations. First Monday received the highest number of citations; however, the average number of citations per article was the highest in D-Lib Magazine. The value of the synchronous impact factor varies from 0.6989 to 1.0014 during 2002 to 2005, and the diachronous impact factor varies from 1.472 to 2.487 during 2000 to 2004. The range of the immediacy index varies between 0.0714 and 1.395. D-Lib Magazine has an immediacy index value above 0.5 in all the years whereas the immediacy index value varies from year to year for the other journals. When the citations of sample articles were analyzed according to source, it was found that 40.32% of the citations came from full-text articles, followed by 33.35% from journal articles. The percentage of journals' self-citation was only 6.04%.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:54:59
  14. Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008) 0.02 
    0.02082137 = product of:
  0.08328548 = sum of:
    0.08328548 = sum of:
      0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049331643 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050121464 = queryNorm
          0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
      0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033953834 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050121464 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.
  15. Juchem, K.: ¬Der Bibliotheksdienst in szientometrischer Analyse (2002) 0.02 
    0.015078641 = product of:
  0.060314562 = sum of:
    0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 1213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060314562 = score(doc=1213,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 1213, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1213)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Der BIBLIOTHEKSDIENST Ist das Organ der Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Bibliotheksverbände (BDB) und wird von der Zentral- und Landesbibliothek Berlin herausgegeben. Er ist eine Fachzeitschrift mit Mitteilungen und Berichten aus allen Bereichen der Bibliotheksarbeit. Der BIBLIOTHEKSDIENST erscheint monatlich (11mal im Jahr), die durchschnittliche Seitenzahl (im DIN A5-Format) beträgt 2.250 pro Jahrgang, wovon rund 200 bis 300 Seiten auf Anzeigen entfallen. Mit einer verkauften Auflage von 4.000 Exemplaren hat er eine große Reichweite in der deutschen Bibliothekswelt. 90% der Abonnenten leben in Deutschland, 10% im Ausland. Der Bezieherkreis setzt sich aus Bibliothekaren und verwandten Berufsgruppen (50%), aus Bibliotheken (40%) und Institutionen des Informationswesens (10%) zusammen. Der BIBLIOTHEKSDIENST erscheint als Printorgan, mit einer Verzögerung von drei Monaten werden die Artikel zusätzlich digital (http://bibliotheksdienst.zib.de) zur Verfügung gestellt. Wie werden die Beiträge des BIBLIOTHEKSDIENST rezipiert? Wo steht der BIBLIOTHEKSDIENST In der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation?
  16. Feitelson, D.G.; Yovel, U.: Predictive ranking of computer scientists using CiteSeer data (2004) 0.02 
    0.015078641 = product of:
  0.060314562 = sum of:
    0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060314562 = score(doc=1259,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The increasing availability of digital libraries with cross-citation data on the Internet enables new studies in bibliometrics. The paper focuses on the list of 10.000 top-cited authors in computer science available as part of CiteSeer. Using data from several consecutive lists a model of how authors accrue citations with time is constructed. By comparing the rate at which individual authors accrue citations with the average rate, predictions are made of how their ranking in the list will change in the future.
  17. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.013581533 = product of:
  0.054326132 = sum of:
    0.054326132 = product of:
      0.108652264 = sum of:
        0.108652264 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108652264 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  18. Janes, J.: Categorical relationships : chi-square (2001) 0.01 
    0.013535989 = product of:
  0.054143958 = sum of:
    0.054143958 = weight(_text_:library in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054143958 = score(doc=1182,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4108404 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Continues a series on topics in research methodology, statistics and data analysis techniques for the library and information sciences. Discusses the chi-square test for relationship between two categorical variables.
    Source
    Library hi tech. 19(2001) no.3, S.296-298
  19. Bensman, S.J.: Probability distributions in library and information science : a historical and practitioner viewpoint (2000) 0.01 
    0.0132625075 = product of:
  0.05305003 = sum of:
    0.05305003 = weight(_text_:library in 4859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05305003 = score(doc=4859,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.40253976 = fieldWeight in 4859, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4859)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper has a dual character dictated by its twofold purpose. First, it is a speculative historiographic essay containing an attempt to fix the present posotion of library and information science within the context of the probabilisitc revolution that has been encompassing all of science. Second, it comprises a guide to practitioners engaged in statistical research in library and information science
  20. Borgman, C.L.; Furner, J.: Scholarly communication and bibliometrics (2002) 0.01 
    0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Why devote an ARIST chapter to scholarly communication and bibliometrics, and why now? Bibliometrics already is a frequently covered ARIST topic, with chapters such as that by White and McCain (1989) on bibliometrics generally, White and McCain (1997) on visualization of literatures, Wilson and Hood (2001) on informetric laws, and Tabah (2001) on literature dynamics. Similarly, scholarly communication has been addressed in other ARIST chapters such as Bishop and Star (1996) on social informatics and digital libraries, Schamber (1994) on relevance and information behavior, and many earlier chapters on information needs and uses. More than a decade ago, the first author addressed the intersection of scholarly communication and bibliometrics with a journal special issue and an edited book (Borgman, 1990; Borgman & Paisley, 1989), and she recently examined interim developments (Borgman, 2000a, 2000c). This review covers the decade (1990-2000) since the comprehensive 1990 volume, citing earlier works only when necessary to explain the foundation for recent developments.

Authors

Languages

  • e 99
  • d 8
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 106
  • el 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes