Search (24 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Morris, S.A.; Yen, G.; Wu, Z.; Asnake, B.: Time line visualization of research fronts (2003) 0.02 
    0.024656197 = product of:
  0.12328098 = sum of:
    0.12328098 = weight(_text_:line in 1452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12328098 = score(doc=1452,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 1452, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1452)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  2. Wainer, J.; Valle, E.: What happens to computer science research after it is published? : Tracking CS research lines (2013) 0.02 
    0.024656197 = product of:
  0.12328098 = sum of:
    0.12328098 = weight(_text_:line in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12328098 = score(doc=948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Are computer science papers extended after they are published? We have surveyed 200 computer science publications, 100 journal articles, and 100 conference papers, using self-citations to identify potential and actual continuations. We are interested in determining the proportion of papers that do indeed continue, how and when the continuation takes place, and whether any distinctions are found between the journal and conference populations. Despite the implicit assumption of a research line behind each paper, manifest in the ubiquitous "future research" notes that close many of them, we find that more than 70% of the papers are never continued.
  3. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.02 
    0.02197589 = product of:
  0.10987945 = sum of:
    0.10987945 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10987945 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  4. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.02 
    0.02197589 = product of:
  0.10987945 = sum of:
    0.10987945 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10987945 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    7. 2.2005 14:10:22
  5. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02 
    0.019424126 = product of:
  0.09712063 = sum of:
    0.09712063 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09712063 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  6. Marion, L.S.; McCain, K.W.: Contrasting views of software engineering journals : author cocitation choices and indexer vocabulary assignments (2001) 0.02 
    0.017611569 = product of:
  0.08805784 = sum of:
    0.08805784 = weight(_text_:line in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08805784 = score(doc=5767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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
  7. Moed, H.F.; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Reedijk, J.: ¬A new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors (1998) 0.01 
    0.014089256 = product of:
  0.070446275 = sum of:
    0.070446275 = weight(_text_:line in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070446275 = score(doc=4719,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.24783395 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    During the past decades, journal impact data obtained from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) have gained relevance in library management, research management and research evaluation. Hence, both information scientists and bibliometricians share the responsibility towards the users of the JCR to analyse the reliability and validity of its measures thoroughly, to indicate pitfalls and to suggest possible improvements. In this article, ageing patterns are examined in 'formal' use or impact of all scientific journals processed for the Science Citation Index (SCI) during 1981-1995. A new classification system of journals in terms of their ageing characteristics is introduced. This system has been applied to as many as 3,098 journals covered by the Science Citation Index. Following an earlier suggestion by Glnzel and Schoepflin, a maturing and a decline phase are distinguished. From an analysis across all subfields it has been concluded that ageing characteristics are primarily specific to the individual journal rather than to the subfield, while the distribution of journals in terms of slowly or rapidly maturing or declining types is specific to the subfield. It is shown that the cited half life (CHL), printed in the JCR, is an inappropriate measure of decline of journal impact. Following earlier work by Line and others, a more adequate parameter of decline is calculated taking into account the size of annual volumes during a range of fifteen years. For 76 per cent of SCI journals the relative difference between this new parameter and the ISI CHL exceeds 5 per cent. The current JCR journal impact factor is proven to be biased towards journals revealing a rapid maturing and decline in impact. Therefore, a longer term impact factor is proposed, as well as a normalised impact statistic, taking into account citation characteristics of the research subfield covered by a journal and the type of documents published in it. When these new measures are combined with the proposed ageing classification system, they provide a significantly improved picture of a journal's impact to that obtained from the JCR.
  8. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.01 
    0.013734931 = product of:
  0.068674654 = sum of:
    0.068674654 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068674654 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
  9. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.011654477 = product of:
  0.05827238 = sum of:
    0.05827238 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05827238 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  10. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.01 
    0.010987945 = product of:
  0.054939725 = sum of:
    0.054939725 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054939725 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
  11. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.01 
    0.009614452 = product of:
  0.048072256 = sum of:
    0.048072256 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048072256 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, 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=6920)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
  12. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.01 
    0.009614452 = product of:
  0.048072256 = sum of:
    0.048072256 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048072256 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, 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=5269)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
  13. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.01 
    0.009614452 = product of:
  0.048072256 = sum of:
    0.048072256 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048072256 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
  14. Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996) 0.01 
    0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
  15. Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998) 0.01 
    0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:33:24
  16. wst: Cut-and-paste-Wissenschaft (2003) 0.01 
    0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1270, 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=1270)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Content
    "Mikhail Simkin und Vwani Roychowdhury von der University of Califomia, Los Angeles, haben eine in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft verbreitete Unsitte erstmals quantitativ erfasst. Die Wissenschaftler analysierten die Verbreitung von Druckfehlern in den Literaturlisten wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten (www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043). 78 Prozent aller zitierten Aufsätze - so schätzen die Forscher - haben die zitierenden Wissenschaftler demnach nicht gelesen, sondern nur per 'cut and paste' von einer Vorlage in ihre eigene Literaturliste übernommen. Das könne man beispielsweise abschätzen aus der Analyse fehlerhafter Seitenangaben in der Literaturliste eines 1973 veröffentlichten Aufsatzes über die Struktur zweidimensionaler Kristalle: Dieser Aufsatz ist rund 4300 mal zitiert worden. In 196 Fällen enthalten die Zitate jedoch Fehler in der Jahreszahl, dem Band der Zeitschrift oder der Seitenzahl, die als Indikatoren für cut and paste genommen werden können, denn man kann, obwohl es Milliarden Möglichkeiten gibt, nur 45 verschiedene Arten von Druckfehlern unterscheiden. In erster Näherung ergibt sich eine Obergrenze für die Zahl der `echten Leser' daher aus der Zahl der unterscheidbaren Druckfehler (45) geteilt durch die Gesamtzahl der Publikationen mit Druckfehler (196), das macht etwa 22 Prozent."
  17. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.01 
    0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
  18. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.01 
    0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
  19. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.01 
    0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
  20. Ma, N.; Guan, J.; Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2008) 0.01 
    0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2064, 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=2064)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    31. 7.2008 14:22:05

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 19
  • d 5

Types

Themes