Search (129 results, page 1 of 7)

0.03486913 = product of:
  0.17434564 = sum of:
    0.17434564 = weight(_text_:line in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17434564 = score(doc=3124,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.6133578 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We present a rationale for the Hirsch-index rank-order distribution and prove that it is a power law (hence a straight line in the log-log scale). This is confirmed by experimental data of Pyykkö and by data produced in this article on 206 mathematics journals. This distribution is of a completely different nature than the impact factor (IF) rank-order distribution which (as proved in a previous article) is S-shaped. This is also confirmed by our example. Only in the log-log scale of the h-index distribution do we notice a concave deviation of the straight line for higher ranks. This phenomenon is discussed.

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)

0.024656197 = product of:
  0.12328098 = sum of:
    0.12328098 = weight(_text_:line in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12328098 = score(doc=3698,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 3698, 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=3698)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This brief communication analyzes the statistics and methods Lotka used to derive his inverse square law of scientific productivity from the standpoint of modern theory. It finds that he violated the norms of this theory by extremely truncating his data on the right. It also proves that Lotka himself played an important role in establishing the commonly used method of identifying power-law behavior by the R2 fit to a regression line on a log-log plot that modern theory considers unreliable by basing the derivation of his law on this very method.

0.02197589 = product of:
  0.10987945 = sum of:
    0.10987945 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10987945 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, 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=5509)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419

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

0.02197589 = product of:
  0.10987945 = sum of:
    0.10987945 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10987945 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, 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=1080)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22

0.021133883 = product of:
  0.10566941 = sum of:
    0.10566941 = weight(_text_:line in 1753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10566941 = score(doc=1753,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.37175092 = fieldWeight in 1753, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1753)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Multidimensional data analysis or On-line analytical processing (OLAP) offers a single subject-oriented source for analyzing summary data based an various dimensions. We demonstrate that the OLAP approach gives a promising starting point for advanced analysis and comparison among summary data in informetrics applications. At the moment there is no single precise, commonly accepted logical/conceptual model for multidimensional analysis. This is because the requirements of applications vary considerably. We develop a conceptual/logical multidimensional model for supporting the complex and unpredictable needs of informetrics. Summary data are considered with respect of some dimensions. By changing dimensions the user may construct other views an the same summary data. We develop a multidimensional query language whose basic idea is to support the definition of views in a way, which is natural and intuitive for lay users in the informetrics area. We show that this view-oriented query language has a great expressive power and its degree of declarativity is greater than in contemporary operation-oriented or SQL (Structured Query Language)-like OLAP query languages.

0.019424126 = product of:
  0.09712063 = sum of:
    0.09712063 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09712063 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, 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=3690)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:22:35

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

0.019228904 = product of:
  0.09614451 = sum of:
    0.09614451 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614451 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)

0.019228904 = product of:
  0.09614451 = sum of:
    0.09614451 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614451 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:29

0.019228904 = product of:
  0.09614451 = sum of:
    0.09614451 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614451 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:55

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

0.017611569 = product of:
  0.08805784 = sum of:
    0.08805784 = weight(_text_:line in 6936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08805784 = score(doc=6936,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 6936, 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=6936)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The distribution of bibliographic records in on-line bibliographic databases is examined using 14 different search topics. These topics were searched using the DIALOG database host, and using as many suitable databases as possible. The presence of duplicate records in the searches was taken into consideration in the analysis, and the problem with lexical ambiguity in at least one search topic is discussed. The study answers questions such as how many databases are needed in a multifile search for particular topics, and what coverage will be achieved using a certain number of databases. The distribution of the percentages of records retrieved over a number of databases for 13 of the 14 search topics roughly fell into three groups: (1) high concentration of records in one database with about 80% coverage in five to eight databases; (2) moderate concentration in one database with about 80% coverage in seven to 10 databases; and (3) low concentration in one database with about 80% coverage in 16 to 19 databases. The study does conform with earlier results, but shows that the number of databases needed for searches with varying complexities of search strategies, is much more topic dependent than previous studies would indicate.

0.017611569 = product of:
  0.08805784 = sum of:
    0.08805784 = weight(_text_:line in 4722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08805784 = score(doc=4722,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 4722, 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=4722)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

By developing a methodology for on-line citation analysis, the international characteristics of scientific journals have been analysed on the basis of correlations between the geographical distribution patterns of authors, citations and subscriptions. The study covered seven selected LIS journals. Assuming that the numbers of authors and citations in each geographical region follow the Poisson distribution, the hypothesis was tested, that the intensities are proportional to the subscriptions. In most cases the correlation between authors and citations was so positive that the international visibility and impact of the scientific journals can be defined by these two variables. As regards the distribution pattern of subscribers, authors and citations, however, the test showed very weak or no correlations. The analysis of the statistical significance of differences gave some useful data, the importance of which to marketing and publishing strategies is obvious. The paper suggests examining also the knowledge export of journals as an additional criterion for the evaluation of their impact, and the quality of research published in them. The comparison of Journal Impact Factors (JIF) is another contribution of this study, aimed to enhance the use of impact factor analysis with various time intervals. We demonstrate new and flexible ways of using the JIF for diachronous and synchronous analyses. The study brings new dimensions to the discussions of the impact, status and image of scientific journals. It focuses on the utilisation of informetric analysis to go beyond the simplistic use of the JIF and to get a deeper understanding of the "real" impact of international scientific journals and their market.

0.017611569 = product of:
  0.08805784 = sum of:
    0.08805784 = weight(_text_:line in 4002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08805784 = score(doc=4002,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 4002, 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=4002)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study explored the feasibility of using Web hyperlink data to study European political Web sites. Ninety-six European Union (EU) political parties belonging to a wide range of ideological, historical, and linguistic backgrounds were included in the study. Various types of data on Web links to party Web sites were collected. The Web colink data were visualized using multidimensional scaling (MDS), while the inlink data were analyzed with a 2-way analysis of variance test. The results showed that Web hyperlink data did reflect some political patterns in the EU. The MDS maps showed clusters of political parties along ideological, historical, linguistic, and social lines. Statistical analysis based on inlink counts further confirmed that there was a significant difference along the line of the political history of a country, such that left-wing parties in the former communist countries received considerably fewer inlinks to their Web sites than left-wing parties in countries without a history of communism did. The study demonstrated the possibility of using Web hyperlink data to gain insights into political situations in the EU. This suggests the richness of Web hyperlink data and its potential in studying social-political phenomena.

0.017611569 = product of:
  0.08805784 = sum of:
    0.08805784 = weight(_text_:line in 4044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08805784 = score(doc=4044,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 4044, 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=4044)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Research on scientific misconduct relies increasingly on retractions of articles. An interdisciplinary line of research has been established that empirically assesses the phenomenon of scientific misconduct using information on retractions, and thus aims to shed light on aspects of misconduct that previously were hidden. However, comparability and interpretability of studies are to a certain extent impeded by an absence of standards in corpus delineation and by the fact that the validity of this empirical data basis has never been systematically scrutinized. This article assesses the conceptual and empirical delineation of retractions against related publication types through a comparative analysis of the coverage and consistency of retraction annotation in the databases PubMed and the Web of Science (WoS), which are both commonly used for empicial studies on retractions. The searching and linking approaches of the WoS were subsequently evaluated. The results indicate that a considerable number of PubMed retracted publications and retractions are not labeled as such in the WoS or are indistinguishable from corrections, which is highly relevant for corpus and sample strategies in the WoS.

0.016481917 = product of:
  0.08240958 = sum of:
    0.08240958 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08240958 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 1.2007 17:02:22

0.016481917 = product of:
  0.08240958 = sum of:
    0.08240958 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08240958 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

18. 3.2014 19:13:22

0.014089256 = product of:
  0.070446275 = sum of:
    0.070446275 = weight(_text_:line in 6026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070446275 = score(doc=6026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.24783395 = fieldWeight in 6026, 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=6026)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The British controversy over the validity of Urquhart's and Garfield's Laws during the 1970s constitutes an important episode in the formulation of the probability structure of human knowledge. This controversy took place within the historical context of the convergence of two scientific revolutions-the bibliometric and the biometric-that had been launched in Britain. The preceding decades had witnessed major breakthroughs in understanding the probability distributions underlying the use of human knowledge. Two of the most important of these breakthroughs were the laws posited by Donald J. Urquhart and Eugene Garfield, who played major roles in establishing the institutional bases of the bibliometric revolution. For his part, Urquhart began his realization of S. C. Bradford's concept of a national science library by analyzing the borrowing of journals on interlibrary loan from the Science Museum Library in 1956. He found that 10% of the journals accounted for 80% of the loans and formulated Urquhart's Law, by which the interlibrary use of a journal is a measure of its total use. This law underlay the operations of the National Lending Library for Science and Technology (NLLST), which Urquhart founded. The NLLST became the British Library Lending Division (BLLD) and ultimately the British Library Document Supply Centre (BLDSC). In contrast, Garfield did a study of 1969 journal citations as part of the process of creating the Science Citation Index (SCI), formulating his Law of Concentration, by which the bulk of the information needs in science can be satisfied by a relatively small, multidisciplinary core of journals. This law became the operational principle of the Institute for Scientif ic Information created by Garfield. A study at the BLLD under Urquhart's successor, Maurice B. Line, found low correlations of NLLST use with SCI citations, and publication of this study started a major controversy, during which both laws were called into question. The study was based on the faulty use of the Spearman rank correlation coefficient, and the controversy over it was instrumental in causing B. C. Brookes to investigate bibliometric laws as probabilistic phenomena and begin to link the bibliometric with the biometric revolution. This paper concludes with a resolution of the controversy by means of a statistical technique that incorporates Brookes' criticism of the Spearman rank-correlation method and demonstrates the mutual supportiveness of the two laws