Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

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)

0.02197589 = 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

0.021133883 = 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 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

0.017611569 = 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.

0.016481917 = 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

0.014089256 = 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

0.014089256 = product of:
  0.070446275 = sum of:
    0.070446275 = weight(_text_:line in 820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070446275 = score(doc=820,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28424788 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.24783395 = fieldWeight in 820, 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=820)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper describes a general methodology for developing bibliometric performance indicators. Such a description provides a framework or paradigm for application-oriented research in the field of evaluative quantitative science and technology studies, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. It is based on our study of scholarly output in the field of Law at the four major universities in Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. The study illustrates that bibliometrics is much more than conducting citation analyses based on the indexes produced by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), since citation data do not play a role in the study. Interaction with scholars in the fields under consideration and openness in the presentation of the quantitative outcomes are the basic features of the methodology. Bibliometrics should be used as an instrument to create a mirror. While not a direct reflection, this study provides a thorough analysis of how scholars in the humanities and social sciences structure their activities and their research output. This structure can be examined empirically from the point of view of its consistency and the degree of consensus among scholars. Relevant issues can be raised that are worth considering in more detail in followup studies, and conclusions from our empirical materials may illuminate such issues. We argue that the principal aim of the development and application of bibliometric indicators is to stimulate a debate among scholars in the field under investigation on the nature of scholarly quality, its principal dimensions, and operationalizations. This aim provides a criterion of "productivity" of the development process. We further contend that librarians are not infrequently requested to provide assistance in collecting data related to research performance assessments, and that the methodology described in the paper aims at offering a general framework for such activities, and can be used by librarians as a line of action whenever they become involved.

0.011654477 = product of:
  0.05827238 = sum of:
    0.05827238 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05827238 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, 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=5275)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:20:22

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

0.010987945 = product of:
  0.054939725 = sum of:
    0.054939725 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054939725 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.010987945 = product of:
  0.054939725 = sum of:
    0.054939725 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054939725 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, 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=1144)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

30.12.2007 11:22:39

0.009712063 = product of:
  0.048560314 = sum of:
    0.048560314 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048560314 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.009614452 = product of:
  0.048072256 = sum of:
    0.048072256 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048072256 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3837, 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=3837)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

29. 3.2003 19:22:48

0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

6.11.2005 19:02:22

0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:26:24

0.008240959 = product of:
  0.04120479 = sum of:
    0.04120479 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04120479 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17749922 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050687566 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

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